k1lk1 t1_j9jyklk wrote
Reply to comment by ThreeLittlePuigs in Uber, Lyft drivers won’t pick up passengers at LaGuardia Airport on Sunday in pay protest strike by ThreeLittlePuigs
The last time they tried a strike it didn't even impact service much at all. Clearly the workers want to make money and not strike.
TheClassyEngineer t1_j9lwdbg wrote
Im not a cab driver and I also want to make money and not strike
ThreeLittlePuigs OP t1_j9jyv2t wrote
I mean clearly some workers want to strike. The system is designed to stifle worker organizing, but they're still trying.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j9k2u79 wrote
>The system is designed to stifle worker organizing
That's because the system is designed to let people work whenever/wherever they want.
It is hard to get a majority of workers on the same page when nobody has a set work schedule.
A labor strike effort would be way more effective if employee classification for ride-share drivers extended to Uber assigning specific pickup zones, dates, and hours to drivers.
An actual strike @ LaGuardia would be impactful if for instance, all riders assigned to work LaGuardia pickup that day collectively decided to strike. Then Uber would have to scramble to assign new drivers to that pickup zone, and those drivers could also strike.
Not sure how many drivers would want Uber to assign them when/where they could drive, though.
ThreeLittlePuigs OP t1_j9k30po wrote
That's an interesting take. Personally I think we should legislate away most gig economy jobs so that we aren't forfeiting basic labor regulations in the favor of some "move fast and break stuff" tech entrepreneurs idea of what's fair.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j9k9j49 wrote
Sure, but fully doing away with the "gig" model for rideshare companies would inevitably result in what I described, which is Uber having control of when/where drivers work.
That would make organizing labor strikes easier, but again, I'm not sure how many drivers would want dedicated shifts assigned to them by Uber.
k1lk1 t1_j9jz1yd wrote
> The system is designed to stifle worker organizing
The system based on civil liberties where if someone wants to work, they can choose to, and if they don't, they are also free to choose that.
Any worker who feels they get a bad deal working for Uber or Lyft is welcome to try out whatever new industry their heart desires.
ThreeLittlePuigs OP t1_j9jzcvu wrote
That's a funny way to say "designed to skirt labor laws and exploit people".
IKNWMORE t1_j9kojr5 wrote
But it’s not. It was designed to be a get in work and leave system. It’s only people who decided this was their “end game” who are saying it’s unfair.
TeamMisha t1_j9led3s wrote
In the OP's defense, Uber was literally based on ignoring regulation and laws to get into markets and then was even banned from several cities for such violations. It is still being debating in courts in various jurisdictions whether Uber is a "gig" economy with little to no responsibilities to workers, or whether the drivers are employees. Uber does crazy shilling and lobbying to do everything possible to avoid labor regulations.
tengentopp t1_j9kxstx wrote
Sounds a lot like the argument that people use against minimum wage: "McDonald's isn't a real job, it's just for kids in high school"
I disagree with that fundamentally. All jobs should provide security for an adult if they wish to do it long-term. Otherwise you're building economies on top of exploiting workers who can't get better jobs, whether it's due to age, education, or simply where they were born. Expecting that there will be an infinite supply of people that can't do better is a really bad bet and ends up backfiring on countries that don't adjust (see Japan).
AnacharsisIV t1_j9lk5t2 wrote
> All jobs should provide security for an adult if they wish to do it long-term.
All jobs, yes, but all companies within a sector? There are ways to make a career out of driving, like getting a truck diver's license, but Uber itself is explicitly not for people to be doing long term.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments