Why? Because taxi drivers are blue collar workers and people perceive them as commodities who should feel lucky to be employed. It works the other way also. Try getting sympathy from a mechanic because Yahoo wont let you earn 6 figures writing code from your house.
The alternative is that Uber's drivers are somehow entitled to a better deal than they are getting, can you explain how that is the case?
I may not be a blue collar worker but that doesn't mean I expect to be owed any sort of deal from anyone. If I feel like I'm getting a raw deal I'm going to leave that situation and find a better deal elsewhere. It's that simple.
It's really easy when you are intelligent and your core competency is in high demand to view the entire world through rose colored lenses. You have so many choices of where to work that you are treated pretty good on the whole.
A lot of people are not so lucky. Let's not pretend that they have the same advantages and opportunities as we do. When they organize to try to raise awareness that they feel they are being treated unreasonably, let's not pretend like they are somehow evil.
We are a bunch of humans living together on this tiny blue dot. We are entitled to be treated with the respect that any human deserves. Please, try to have a little bit of perspective outside your own experience. There is a whole world of people whose circumstances are far different from anything you can imagine.
Ok, so Uber's drivers aren't being fairly compensated for the immense amount of value they provide to Uber, so they are not whining about it on the internet, they are getting off of their arses and trying to get Uber to fairly compensate them. I fail to see the entitlement here.
The flipside of entitlement is exploitation - Uber are exploiting the low-pay and restricted bargaining power of blue collar workers to their own ends. I think that is far more reprehensible.
As intelligent, fast-learning people in a market that allows for a greater deal of freedom than theirs, it is wrong to judge them. They are in a shittier situation than us, and are trying to change that. Surely we should be admiring them for taking the initiative and doing this?
> I may not be a blue collar worker but that doesn't mean I expect to be owed any sort of deal from anyone. If I feel like I'm getting a raw deal I'm going to leave that situation and find a better deal elsewhere. It's that simple.
They're negotiating for a better deal. They just happen to be using different tactics than you would.
And that's the problem. This whole union-style protest negotiation tactic is absurd. They are not entitled to a better deal as long as other workers are able, willing and qualified to step into their shoes and do the job. You work or you are out, it's pretty simple.
Given Uber's recent history with authority, I wouldn't be surprised if some shady organization employed all these unhappy people to go and protest. Most like, actually.
This supposedly free market anti-labourer rhetoric is absurd: If market participants organise as a company, they seem have every right to negotiate as a whole to get a better deal. What is your problem with just another type of market participant organising and negotiating as a group?
With the drivers acting as a group, the other party would now have to replace most of them (excluding defectors), not one of them, which is more difficult, giving the group a better negotiating position. No entitlement, just free markets and game theory.
Your use of the word "entitled" is truly patronizing. Even from your own free market perspective, in a free market you are entitled to what you can get. If you have money, you are free to use it as you wish, and if you have friends you are free to unionize to try to get as much as you can. It's all a power struggle. One side is not any more entitled to anything than the other. They fight it out.
Also, your use of the word "authority" is wrong. Judging by Uber's recent bouts with elected representatives of the people and democratic institutions, and their relative success, I'm not sure where "authority" lies: with "corrupt institutions" or with "stinking money". To continue your conspiratorial line of thought, I'd say that I wouldn't be surprised if Uber's successes are a result of bribery (In fact, there is more reason to believe the latter, as you and I were both present when a certain man of influence bragged to a large crowd about something along the same lines.)
That's all from the free-market perspective. From a social responsibility perspective, I don't understand why a company feels entitled to fire working people when they like, without a proper hearing.
>And that's the problem. This whole union-style protest negotiation tactic is absurd. They are not entitled to a better deal as long as other workers are able, willing and qualified to step into their shoes and do the job. You work or you are out, it's pretty simple.
That's funny, because in countries where there's no prevalent disdain for trade unions, this tactic actually works and gets workers good deals. This is only absurd for employers, who'd like to get more work done and pay less.
Everyone is entitled to some basic level of human decency in their interactions with others; our society relies on this. And we are also entitled to draw attention, in any legal manner we choose, to a situation where we feel that we are not being treated appropriately. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is there for a reason, and it's not automatically evil just because you don't agree with the ends.
Freedom of speech and assembly have nothing to do with this. And they're not freedom from repercussions by private actors, but merely freedom from government force.
I personally think tactics like these are counterproductive and that it'd be better to handle it internally.
I'm not sure, but I'm willing to guess that it probably isn't possible to handle it "internally" when you have been fired for a 4.7 rating. I mean, Uber ignored them when they were in front their building. Do you think Uber did that because they thought a phone call would have been more polite?
I definitely don't see how it was counter productive though, if they were standing out there to bring more attention to the situation.
Well that's just fucking dumb. It's a free market with at-will employment, ain't it? These workers are entitled to use what leverage they have as they please, and that includes to organize and strike for better pay and working conditions.
If you don't like it, move to some country where the state actively oppresses workers and suppresses the price of labor for the Greater Glory of Capital. Oh wait, you already live in the United States, don't you?
I've only ever caught one Uber but I wasn't overly impressed. I think the business opportunity wouldn't even exist in the UK because regular taxis are at a similar standard and cost less.
They seem to be hacking the law/industry in order to provide a service some way between taxis and limos at a cost that is just above taxis. But then they expect the drivers to work at taxi wages. If they think students can deliver the same service at taxi driver prices, good luck to them
Über is in London. My experience of London cabs is dated but would be that they are not even close. Drivers can be chatty (but maybe not in the way I want) and knowledgeable, but not always. Cars are not even close. No refreshments, have to fiddle with cash etc. Great app to locate and track pick-up, rating system (in principle, despite this article, a good idea)
That's a pretty binary viewpoint. I'm sure that at some point in my life I'll feel like I deserve a raise or a promotion and I will ask for one rather than just quitting when I don't get it.
Asking for something is a bit different than protesting for it. Typically you'd first ask, and then you'd either get it, leave, ask more, or move on to a more forceful way of "asking" (such as protesting or striking).
So, are you saying that if you ask for a raise/promotion and don't get it, then you will gather your friends around your bosses's cubicle and chant and protest until you get what you want ? That's definitely going to get you a promotion, yeah.
You're either with the startups or you're against them. Supporting workers in this case means you're against the startups, and that's "wrong." Of course HN members don't write that, but people are here in large part to support their passion for startups - don't challenge that or you're gonna have a bad time. Every would-be founder here is thinking they'd can 50,000 taxi drivers in a heartbeat if it meant a shot at the big time.
HN commenters are just people like you and me. They care about people like themselves more than people not like themselves. To HN commenters, Uber's founders are like them and taxi drivers aren't. Of course they're going to side with the company here.
I have gone through my life with one rule, anyone who is providing me a service I address by Sir or Ma'am. I do not care if its the order taker at McDonalds, the register operator at Wal-Mart, or my Doctor. They are people performing jobs whose service I need or may need, I respect anyone out there earning a living for themselves and their families. For myself it puts everything in perspective, we are all trying to make it in this world and there is nothing to gain by disparaging the position of others.
There are times where I really like the people at McDonalds than those I work for, the pretentiousness at times is discouraging.
I'm not so sure. I've always felt there's a quite specific form of elitism among many HN readers. Somewhat similar to what you find in business schools, but less based on privileged and more on a lack of "bildung".
