What you describe is expressly illegal under American labor law. If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.
Even if a company prevents unionization activities during working hours (which companies can restrict) there is nothing preventing the union from mailing, calling, or emailing the employees outside of work. Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).
Nitpick: A century ago wages were fixed and strikes were banned, and the Allies were about halfway through the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the Great War on November 11th.
He actually up and moved an entire car factory when they unionized.
He also sent buses down to Dixie to hire black replacements for white strikers. But eventually the UAW realized that racism wasn't working, and they unionized the blacks too.
Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.
Not in America. But in some European countries, unions and companies often work together, and realize that in the long run, happy employees and profitable companies are in everyone's best interest.
it should be illegal for a company to influence employees
Then work on repealing the 1st Amendment. In the meantime, employees should hear all sides and make up their own minds.
Companies only want to keep their employees divided because they are weaker that way and that's just oppressive.
Unions don't always work in the best interest of the employees. In one famous example, UPS offered their employees a retirement package, and the Teamsters fought and won a significantly LESS generous package, and prevented their members from voting on it. Why? Because it allowed the Teamsters to manage the money, and divert much of it to older retirees from other companies whose own funds had been squandered by the Teamsters' management.
Companies look out for the interests of the company.
but does any of that goes to riders and drivers whose data got breached?
No, because they didn't suffer any financial consequences, since all their data had already been leaked in the Equifax, Target, Yahoo, and Home Depot breaches. People need to face reality: At this point your name, SSN, DOB, home address, and CC#s are all public information. Breaches don't matter anymore.
In Uber's mind, it is neither the contractor (driver) nor the contractee (rider) -- it just writes the contract for the two.
No. This is false. The Uber contract is between the driver and Uber. Uber is the contractee, not the rider, and they don't claim otherwise.
... because their work is an integral part of Uber's business
This is just one of 20 criteria for determining employee vs contractor status in America. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition either way.
Investing $50 million, which is something like.02% of his wealth into Signal
His net worth is about $3.6B (the $19B was split many ways), so $50M is about 1.4%. But still, it is absurd how he is trying to portray himself as some sort of morally superior victim.
But it is Uber, not the driver, who specifies the terms of the contract. IMHO, that makes Uber an employer, and the drivers employees, not contractors.
That is an absurd criterium. Nearly all contracts are written by one party and accepted by the other. If that makes it "not a contract", then there would be no contractors.
There is nothing new about this. I was in Berkeley in the early 1980s, back when the new freshmen were still boomers. In September, the panhandlers and scammers would be lined up along Telegraph Avenue. By October, the students would be jaded and cynical.
My plumber doesn't work 40+ hours per week for me week after week.
More than 80% of Uber drivers are part timers. More than half drive less than 10 hours per week.
I also generally don't have my plumber sign a contract before beginning to work for me.
In most states, a licensed plumber is required to have you sign a work order that contains a list of what is to be done and an estimate of the cost. It is a contract.
I don't set my plumber's rates.
Then you are likely paying more than you need to. Everything is negotiable.
Sorry, but this is just a regurgitation of the myth.
According to your citation: As a result of these efforts, the sparrow became nearly extinct in China.
Really?
Let's look at what is being asserted here: China is a VAST country, with millions of square miles of forests, deserts, mountain ranges, badlands, etc. So hundreds of millions of peasants trekked through these vast landscapes, banging on pots and waving flags, leaving a swathe of dead sparrows in their wake... yet somehow having no noticeable effect on any other species. They beat these pots 24/7 until all the sparrows fell from the skies in exhaustion, yet somehow the sparrows never thought to fly over the line of pot bangers to the areas that had already be "cleared"?
Do you really think any of that is plausible? A belief in the Easter Bunny is more reasonable.
At the time, most Chinese were rural, and agriculture was being collectivized, with disasterous results. The leadership of China was having difficulty motivating people to GROW RICE, and we are expected to believe that they left their homes and farms to go bang pots through vast stretches of wilderness?
Both the Chinese Communist Party, and Western governments had an interest in spreading this myth. The CCP wanted to blame the sparrows for the starving peasants because the real reason was the Great Leap Forward, and agricultural collectivization was a disaster, with was a core tenet of Maoism. The West promoted the myth to make the commies and their central planning look stupid.
Here is a propaganda film about this anti-sparrow campaign. Does this look real? Or like made up nonsense?
The "great sparrow extinction" never happened. If you think it did, or if you think it is even plausible, then you need to develop some critical thinking skills.
But don't take my word for it. Get a pot and a big spoon. Go outside and bang on it. Count all the dead sparrows that fall from the sky. Then come back and let us know how many you killed.
But I thought there were already "breeder reactors" that did this. How was this design different from them?
Old fashioned breeder reactors turn U-238 into plutonium. Although plutonium can be used as reactor fuel, it can also be used to make bombs. Furthermore, these reactors use fuel rods, and pressurized containers, and have the same complexity and safety problems as LWRs.
What makes this reactor different is that it doesn't make plutonium, it burns the fuel that in breeds in situ so no extra expensive reprocessing is needed, and it is an inherently safe design: It can't have a "meltdown" since it is already liquid, and it is not pressurized.
That is the theory. In practice, molten salt reactors don't have a very good track record.
Why is anyone wasting their time on this when there's thorium?
Their design does use thorium. The base salt is thorium fluoride. You heat up the salt till it melts, and then just mix in the nuclear waste, hook it up to a turbine, and presto, energy too cheap to meter.
Thorium salt reactors work GREAT in theory, and nerds tend to love them. In reality, there are... problems.
Mosquitoes are not a natural part of many food chains. For instance, before the arrival of Europeans, there were no mosquitoes in Hawaii. Same for many other islands in Polynesia.
If the mosquitoes in Hawaii were wiped out, it would be restoring the food chain to its more natural state, and would likely help native species against invaders.
For example in Communist China, Mao encouraged everyone to wipe out sparrows
This is mostly a myth. Mao did indeed order that, but the campaign to "wipe out" the sparrows mostly involved banging pots and waving flags. The theory was that the sparrows would be so frightened that they would die of heart attacks. Does that sound plausible to you? Only a negligible number of sparrows were killed, and although there was a famine, it had nothing to do with sparrows.
I've been seeing a lot of parked cars with both Lyft and Uber stickers. I worry that after they work their 10 hour shift for oee company they move on and work another 10 hour shift at the other.
No. That is not what they do. They work for both at the same time. They have both apps, and take whichever ride comes first and then remove themselves from the queue in the other app.
The more "gig economy workers" there are, the lower the rates will be.
Not necessarily. You are only looking at one side. As the "gig economy" grows, there will be more "sellers" (workers) but also more buyers of their services.
The number of Uber drivers has gone up, but so has the number of riders.
No it isn't. One article written by one lazy journalist is not the only data available.
Uber has said that the reason for the decline is drivers working fewer hours. According to Uber, more than 50% of their drivers now work less than 10 hours per week.
The job market today is stronger than it was 4 years ago, and it makes no sense for workers to accept half the pay they did then for the same job. People are not that stupid, and that is NOT happening.
They're trying to undercut taxis and public transportation, then jack prices sky-high after they kill the competition.
Their competition is not taxis or public transit. Their competition is Lyft, and Lyft is not going away. When both Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, other "ride-share" companies were up and running in less than a week.
Uber is growing at 3 times the rate that taxis are declining, so only a third of their riders would have otherwise used a taxi.
Uber's rates are already "sky-high" compared to public transit. They win against public transit by being way faster and more convenient.
The headline is VERY misleading. They are talking about MONTHLY income and NOT hourly income. So what is happening is that new Uber drivers are far more likely to be part timers, putting in a few hours of driving at the end of the day to earn some extra income.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week. Over 60% have another job that is their main income.
Slashdot Mirror
the article makes it very clear that the video exists
No it doesn't. There is no link in TFA to the actually video.
TFA mentions "the video" 24 times, but has this many links to it: 0.
What you describe is expressly illegal under American labor law. If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.
Even if a company prevents unionization activities during working hours (which companies can restrict) there is nothing preventing the union from mailing, calling, or emailing the employees outside of work. Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).
Ford pioneered this a century ago.
Nitpick: A century ago wages were fixed and strikes were banned, and the Allies were about halfway through the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the Great War on November 11th.
He actually up and moved an entire car factory when they unionized.
He also sent buses down to Dixie to hire black replacements for white strikers. But eventually the UAW realized that racism wasn't working, and they unionized the blacks too.
Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.
Not in America. But in some European countries, unions and companies often work together, and realize that in the long run, happy employees and profitable companies are in everyone's best interest.
it should be illegal for a company to influence employees
Then work on repealing the 1st Amendment. In the meantime, employees should hear all sides and make up their own minds.
Companies only want to keep their employees divided because they are weaker that way and that's just oppressive.
Unions don't always work in the best interest of the employees. In one famous example, UPS offered their employees a retirement package, and the Teamsters fought and won a significantly LESS generous package, and prevented their members from voting on it. Why? Because it allowed the Teamsters to manage the money, and divert much of it to older retirees from other companies whose own funds had been squandered by the Teamsters' management.
Companies look out for the interests of the company.
Unions look out for the interests of the union.
but does any of that goes to riders and drivers whose data got breached?
No, because they didn't suffer any financial consequences, since all their data had already been leaked in the Equifax, Target, Yahoo, and Home Depot breaches. People need to face reality: At this point your name, SSN, DOB, home address, and CC#s are all public information. Breaches don't matter anymore.
In Uber's mind, it is neither the contractor (driver) nor the contractee (rider) -- it just writes the contract for the two.
No. This is false. The Uber contract is between the driver and Uber. Uber is the contractee, not the rider, and they don't claim otherwise.
... because their work is an integral part of Uber's business
This is just one of 20 criteria for determining employee vs contractor status in America. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition either way.
IRS 20 point checklist
ever sign NDA's? Either during the hiring process ...
NDAs are a barrier to recruitment. Some people refuse to sign them, and they tend to be the best people who have plenty of other options.
... or while terminating their employment?
In this case, he quit. So he isn't getting any severance either way.
As a public company, Google is required to build as much value for its shareholders as possible
No they aren't. This is a myth.
Corporations are not required to maximize profits or shareholder value
Investing $50 million, which is something like .02% of his wealth into Signal
His net worth is about $3.6B (the $19B was split many ways), so $50M is about 1.4%. But still, it is absurd how he is trying to portray himself as some sort of morally superior victim.
But it is Uber, not the driver, who specifies the terms of the contract. IMHO, that makes Uber an employer, and the drivers employees, not contractors.
That is an absurd criterium. Nearly all contracts are written by one party and accepted by the other. If that makes it "not a contract", then there would be no contractors.
There is nothing new about this. I was in Berkeley in the early 1980s, back when the new freshmen were still boomers. In September, the panhandlers and scammers would be lined up along Telegraph Avenue. By October, the students would be jaded and cynical.
My plumber doesn't work 40+ hours per week for me week after week.
More than 80% of Uber drivers are part timers. More than half drive less than 10 hours per week.
I also generally don't have my plumber sign a contract before beginning to work for me.
In most states, a licensed plumber is required to have you sign a work order that contains a list of what is to be done and an estimate of the cost. It is a contract.
I don't set my plumber's rates.
Then you are likely paying more than you need to. Everything is negotiable.
There's good reasons people are annoyed at both major parties.
Are they? Trumps approval rating with Republican voters is 85%.
Sorry, but this is just a regurgitation of the myth.
According to your citation: As a result of these efforts, the sparrow became nearly extinct in China.
Really?
Let's look at what is being asserted here: China is a VAST country, with millions of square miles of forests, deserts, mountain ranges, badlands, etc. So hundreds of millions of peasants trekked through these vast landscapes, banging on pots and waving flags, leaving a swathe of dead sparrows in their wake ... yet somehow having no noticeable effect on any other species. They beat these pots 24/7 until all the sparrows fell from the skies in exhaustion, yet somehow the sparrows never thought to fly over the line of pot bangers to the areas that had already be "cleared"?
Do you really think any of that is plausible? A belief in the Easter Bunny is more reasonable.
At the time, most Chinese were rural, and agriculture was being collectivized, with disasterous results. The leadership of China was having difficulty motivating people to GROW RICE, and we are expected to believe that they left their homes and farms to go bang pots through vast stretches of wilderness?
Both the Chinese Communist Party, and Western governments had an interest in spreading this myth. The CCP wanted to blame the sparrows for the starving peasants because the real reason was the Great Leap Forward, and agricultural collectivization was a disaster, with was a core tenet of Maoism. The West promoted the myth to make the commies and their central planning look stupid.
Here is a propaganda film about this anti-sparrow campaign. Does this look real? Or like made up nonsense?
The "great sparrow extinction" never happened. If you think it did, or if you think it is even plausible, then you need to develop some critical thinking skills.
But don't take my word for it. Get a pot and a big spoon. Go outside and bang on it. Count all the dead sparrows that fall from the sky. Then come back and let us know how many you killed.
But I thought there were already "breeder reactors" that did this. How was this design different from them?
Old fashioned breeder reactors turn U-238 into plutonium. Although plutonium can be used as reactor fuel, it can also be used to make bombs. Furthermore, these reactors use fuel rods, and pressurized containers, and have the same complexity and safety problems as LWRs.
What makes this reactor different is that it doesn't make plutonium, it burns the fuel that in breeds in situ so no extra expensive reprocessing is needed, and it is an inherently safe design: It can't have a "meltdown" since it is already liquid, and it is not pressurized.
That is the theory. In practice, molten salt reactors don't have a very good track record.
Molten salt reactor
Why is anyone wasting their time on this when there's thorium?
Their design does use thorium. The base salt is thorium fluoride. You heat up the salt till it melts, and then just mix in the nuclear waste, hook it up to a turbine, and presto, energy too cheap to meter.
Thorium salt reactors work GREAT in theory, and nerds tend to love them. In reality, there are ... problems.
Mosquitoes are not a natural part of many food chains. For instance, before the arrival of Europeans, there were no mosquitoes in Hawaii. Same for many other islands in Polynesia.
If the mosquitoes in Hawaii were wiped out, it would be restoring the food chain to its more natural state, and would likely help native species against invaders.
For example in Communist China, Mao encouraged everyone to wipe out sparrows
This is mostly a myth. Mao did indeed order that, but the campaign to "wipe out" the sparrows mostly involved banging pots and waving flags. The theory was that the sparrows would be so frightened that they would die of heart attacks. Does that sound plausible to you? Only a negligible number of sparrows were killed, and although there was a famine, it had nothing to do with sparrows.
I've been seeing a lot of parked cars with both Lyft and Uber stickers. I worry that after they work their 10 hour shift for oee company they move on and work another 10 hour shift at the other.
No. That is not what they do. They work for both at the same time. They have both apps, and take whichever ride comes first and then remove themselves from the queue in the other app.
The driver still needs to pay the costs of running the vehicle, which will not have reduced in 5 years
Actually, running costs have reduced. The biggest cost is gas, which was $3.65 per gallon 5 years ago, and is $2.90 today.
The more "gig economy workers" there are, the lower the rates will be.
Not necessarily. You are only looking at one side. As the "gig economy" grows, there will be more "sellers" (workers) but also more buyers of their services.
The number of Uber drivers has gone up, but so has the number of riders.
nobody knows since the data is _only_ monthly.
No it isn't. One article written by one lazy journalist is not the only data available.
Uber has said that the reason for the decline is drivers working fewer hours. According to Uber, more than 50% of their drivers now work less than 10 hours per week.
The job market today is stronger than it was 4 years ago, and it makes no sense for workers to accept half the pay they did then for the same job. People are not that stupid, and that is NOT happening.
They're trying to undercut taxis and public transportation, then jack prices sky-high after they kill the competition.
Their competition is not taxis or public transit. Their competition is Lyft, and Lyft is not going away. When both Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, other "ride-share" companies were up and running in less than a week.
Uber is growing at 3 times the rate that taxis are declining, so only a third of their riders would have otherwise used a taxi.
Uber's rates are already "sky-high" compared to public transit. They win against public transit by being way faster and more convenient.
The headline is VERY misleading. They are talking about MONTHLY income and NOT hourly income. So what is happening is that new Uber drivers are far more likely to be part timers, putting in a few hours of driving at the end of the day to earn some extra income.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week. Over 60% have another job that is their main income.