Slashdot Mirror
Uber Is Using In-App Podcasts To Dissuade Seattle Drivers From Unionizing (theverge.com)
Uber doesn't like unionization, like many corporations. In January, the company sued the city of Seattle to challenge the city's authority to implement a law that would allow ride-share drivers to unionize. The Verge is reporting today that the company has been using in-app podcasts to dissuade their Seattle drivers from unionizing by explaining, in their view, how the city's unionization law would negatively affect drivers. From the report: Uber spokesperson Nathan Hambley pushed back on a story from The Wall Street Journal over the weekend that suggested Uber drivers in Seattle were forced to choose whether or not to listen to the company-produced podcasts every day before they can begin picking up riders. The podcasts, which are produced in a number of geographic markets for Uber drivers, appear as notifications at the bottom of the app that can be dismissed or ignored -- or acted upon to start the latest podcast episode, which usually run under 10 minutes. Drivers are not required to listen to the podcast, said Hambley in an interview. "They are not required to look down at the notification at all. The most prominent button is to go on or offline to accept rides." The notification first appears as the limited message on the left, and, if the driver swipes up, the full message appears. The notification remains at the bottom of the driver screen regardless of whether it is ignored, or if the podcast is listened to or not.
Could someone be so kind as to copy/paste the WSJ article into here so that we can read it? FYI, a summary to news that no one can read is shite editing.
Looking at you BeauHD.
When you have a system like that of the US of A one tends to wonder they bother complaining at all.
Unions are by the people, for the people.
Corporations are by special interest groups for profits.
The two never shall meet.
Without the collective will of the people, an individual is easy picken's for the corporation to instil its will.
This all boils down to a systemic corruption of the political platform with bribery/lobbying and cronyism at its heart.
Uber does have the right to communicate their side of the story to their drivers ... somehow this is controversial because ... they used their app?
The company part of all these sharing startups could be replaced if the drivers(sharers) formed a coop, where they all had joint ownership of the infustructure, drivers pay yearly fee of 20 dollars, and then they get to keep all their wages.
Honestly what does uber really do besides being middlemen.
"The notification remains at the bottom of the driver screen regardless of whether it is ignored, or if the podcast is listened to or not."
You can bet that Uber is gathering metrics on who which drivers refuse to listen to these "voluntary" podcasts and which ones click away from it before it's finished.
Those who fall into this "uncooperative" or "unreceptive" group will be punished one way or another, and you can bet your ass on that.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Uber "Tokyo Rose" may not be so ... persuasive! IPSOFACTO
I share your outrage over McDonalds cultural insensitivity in their latest Shamrock Shake advertisement.
I pledge to only have around 10 this year, instead of getting one every day they are available.
Join me in this stance for social justice, my brethren!
>Required to listen to company briefings
>Not employees
I hope this blows up in their face and is used as further evidence against their "independent contractor."
said she wants a short Uber ride to cost at least $60, so we need to fight against her. She also stands against allowing us to have faster than dial-up access since she is anti-Internet because of her husband that works at Microsoft.
Of course she stands against the Internet. You can't blame her for that since her husband works at Microsoft.
Anyone that makes money from Microsoft will of course hate the Internet.
Why do drivers for Uber, Lyft et al need to wait for Seattle to pass a law before they can unionise? The freedom to collectively bargain is something that all private sectors workers (public sector is a little more complicated) should have a right to.
Her $60 per ride demand is just ridiculous. He must think everyone makes as much as her husband does at Microsoft.
Why don't companies ever fight unions by providing a good living for their employees?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I for one think that the drivers should remain ionized.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
"In fact, there isn’t a way for Uber to force drivers to do much of anything"
Really? A British court would disagree....
Since demonstrating your loyalty by listening to the company podcast is voluntary; I, for one, express childlike faith that it is completely impossible that compliance statistics would be gathered in the background; or ever factored in to a decision to not-fire-because-they-aren't-employees somebody. That sort of covert stuff just isn't Uber's company culture!
Maybe this Uber driver was listening to one of those podcasts when this happened.
I speak for most Irish, I think, when I say: we dont give a fuck about cultural insensitivity or 'appropriation' or any shit like that. Put a whiskey in your shamrock shake and use it as an enema.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
...how can Uber a) call the drivers contractors and b) then dissuade them from organizing? Seems like the former would preclude the latter, and the latter would totally negate the former.
If you form a union, one of the first demands will be that the company will no longer be allowed to play ads in your app.
I'm generally neutral or slightly anti-union, but this is just the sort of thing that would persuade me to join a union.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
if you have value to the company, you have footing to get certain things you don't like....
oops, you failed
I've never had the opportunity to work in a unionized environment, but would be happy to do so. In environments where it's allowed to work well, unions provide individual employees a balanced environment that they couldn't get on their own. Even a fair dismissal process in the coming age of mass unemployment is a good minimum standard.
Most Uber fans trend younger, and younger employees haven't experienced the other side of the corporate coin. I've been working for almost 25 years now, and have been very lucky to have generally decent employers for most of it. However, younger workers are supremely confident in their ability to negotiate with their employer. They think they'll never be treated unfairly, or if they are they can just walk into another job for a 20% raise the next day. They will happily give their entire life to their job and expect that their employer will never turn on them; look at all the Amazon or Microsoft employees working 100+ hour weeks. And, the most vocal will loudly beat the drum saying that pro-union workers are lazy, entitled and tools of organized crime that drain the precious resources of their employers. They will gladly walk out in front of a train for their employers and say that the free market fixes all. Perhaps the most interesting thing I hear is that they're so much better than the average employer, so why would they ever stoop to the level of helping someone else out?
Even with my decent employers, I've seen people in their 50s who basically built billions of dollars worth of products and gave their entire career to the company get thrown out with no severance one day when the company decides they have to save money. Entire departments get sent off to India or the Philippines by Accenture and their ilk with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse. Even inflation-index salary increases are routinely denied because "you're too expensive already." Something has to be done to level the playing field in cases like this, and no individual is going to have the power to do that. The labor/management divide needs to exist; companies have spent decades convincing workers that everyone's all on the same team. You need an antagonistic relationship to keep things fair, otherwise you wind the clock back to the beginning of the 1900s.
The way to prevent unionizing is to treat your employee's oops I meant contractors properly. Of course we all know Uber drivers are really employee's but who's splitting hairs right? Union's have been shrinking dramatically in the US for decades, and its because working conditions are better. We've all saw the CEO of Uber video and how little he cares about the success of the driver's. So it's no wonder many are working towards unionizing ranks to have a voice.
The harder a company tries to convince it's workers not to unionize the more they are being exploited. No exceptions.