Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClintFix | Hacker News Reader

"Uber almost certainly can thrive even if it pays its drivers more, and even if it picks up their expenses and pays them benefits like a genuine employer. It won't make as much money per trip, but its service may become more reliable instead, which could expand its market."

Well, if that's the case then forcing the change need not happen. If there is a financial or competitive benefit (better service and more reliable) to the company, it will either make the change voluntarily or a competitor will figure that out and eventually grow larger. If not, then your assumption is wrong.

Oh - nobody forces anyone to work with uber. They know what they're signing up for. They're not entitled to anything from uber except for what they agreed upon in the contract to work.

View on HN

"Oh - nobody forces anyone to work with uber. They know what they're signing up for. They're not entitled to anything from uber except for what they agreed upon in the contract to work."

You can make the same argument against minimum wage, or any other abusive contracts (payday/predatory loans). A lot of time one of the party signing the contract has no other option depending on his situation, that doesn't mean a company/individual should be able to take advantage of his situation and get him in a tough bargain.

Also, not all contract signings are created equal, that's how a lot of companies sneak no-compete's which have been deemed unenforceable many times.

You are correct. People seem to assume the two parties signing a contract have the same amount of power. This is far from true.

How is it not true in Uber's case?

> You can make the same argument against minimum wage, or any other abusive contracts (payday/predatory loans).

The people who make the argument against labor laws like the ones at issue with Uber often do make the same argument against minimum wage laws, or other laws restricting "abusive" contracts.

Indeed they do, and they are right to do so.

Employers have too much power in the asymmetrical employer/employee relationship. In order to counteract this and level the playing field, there must be minimum labor standards enforced by the state.

I know that a lot of right-leaning Americans think that government should stay out of private contracts, but they'd be dead wrong. If the employee was just as powerful as the employer, then the situation would be different.

I think you're giving yourself the ability to reason along the spectrum, but assuming that more libertarian leaning people are incapable of admitting that some standards are OK. Of course some standards are OK, it's these standards that we object to. Workers need to be protected from unsafe working conditions, sure. Minimum standards aside, there's no reason to cast Uber vs. drivers as a Marxist class struggle when the Uber drivers themselves seem to be satisfied with the arrangement.

> Minimum standards aside, there's no reason to cast Uber vs. drivers as a Marxist class struggle when the Uber drivers themselves seem to be satisfied with the arrangement.

(1) The existence of the lawsuit means that the generalization serving as the explicit premise here is incorrect.

(2) Without defending Marxist class struggle as a valid or correct framework for addressing reality, the idea that the drivers seem generally satisfied with the arrangement is relevant to whether characterizing it as a Marxist class struggle is necessary may reveal a poor understanding of the entire idea of Marxist class struggle and particularly the role of class consciousness within such a struggle.

Conversely, people should hold a pitchfork to the necks of corporations, to keep them in check from exploiting labor.

People are more important than you're business model.

I do make the same argument about minimum wage, and about "predatory" lending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com