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.

Comments

As intended

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:As intended

[RabidReindeer]

OR it could just be that that's been a steady stream of propaganda from a certain political party and Corporate America for 100 years. A Big Lie repeated over and over again until it "becomes" the unassailable Truth.

Any organization can become corrupt at times but that does not mean that you can automatically assume that all such organizations are all corrupt at all times.

Indeed, it is often the case that the more people need something, the more that unsavoury types will move in. And if they need something desperately and someone rich and powerful opposes them, it's not unthinkable that the unsavoury types could get a little extra "help", if you know what I mean.

There are a lot of things to dislike about Unions. But thinking you can stand up as a single individual and negotiate on an even footing with an organization which is stocked with cash, "Human Resources", lawyers, and the patience to starve you out is pitiably naive.

Re:As intended

[kilfarsnar]

The employee could just quit the job if they find the conditions or compensation intolerable.

That's not true in many cases, and you know it. The employee almost always needs the job more than the employer needs that particular employee. There is always a power imbalance, which is why unions are a thing in the first place.

The right

[farble1670]

Uber does have the right to communicate their side of the story to their drivers ... somehow this is controversial because ... they used their app?

Re:The right

[msauve]

Legal right != ethical behavior. Uber has shown time and time again that they're evil. They have other means of communicating non-business related messages to their drivers.

Re:The right

[rtb61]

No your fucking boss does not have the right to spout political propaganda at you every time you start work. If the boss has that right, you should have the right to punch them in the face if you do not like it.

Re:The right

[irving47]

Seems the majority of stories coming out about Uber are related to how unhappy the drivers are. And how low the pay is/How hard it is to stay in the black.
My major red flag was a story about how they "job interviewed" a bunch of potential drivers, but it seemed that it turned out to be a bait/switch for free consulting to help train their self-driving cars.... Sorry, I can't seem to find the article ATM.

Cooperative makes more sense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And you can bet

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"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.

Re: Text please?

[WarJolt]

That's fair use.

Re:Text please?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not entitled to free content.

Fight the union

[fluffernutter]

Why don't companies ever fight unions by providing a good living for their employees?