Comment by blisterpeanuts | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blisterpeanuts | Hacker News Reader

The irony of this situation is that Uber and Lyft would probably never have gotten this big, had they hired only full time employees with benefits.

Their business model works. That's why they're bigger than GM now. And that's why suddenly they're being perceived as unfair and exploitative.

In the Western social democratic system that more or less pervades the old industrial nations of Western Europe and the U.S., financial success is an invitation to lawsuits, unionization, and government fines.

The unionization is couched as a class warfare thing -- the management/owners are making big bucks and we workers are making peanuts -- but in reality, it's all about fighting for a piece of the pie.

The Teamsters rep in Oakland summed it all up: even though Uber's buying a big building there and employing 2,000 to 3,000 people, it's time to unionize and make them "give back".

I just hope that Seattle and California don't set a national trend, or this may be the beginning of the end for the sharing economy, just as manufacturing ended, and just as outsourcing has hollowed out the computer programming field and other domestic professions. What will there be left for Americans to do, if we keep shooting down every innovative business model like this?

If the business model cannot survive an even bargaining table (i.e. where both parties have equal power instead), maybe it's not as sustainable and profitable as the traditional businesses which make a profit with unionised labor.

I personally don't think that Uber is that much worse than the old taxi companies, and it should continue making a steady profit despite losing its luxury of unilaterally dictating their terms and wages to the drivers.

So you think some people should be able to form a business like Uber or Lyft, but you don't think other people, such as their contractors, should be able to form their own business for the purpose of negotiating collectively?

Because that's all a union is: it's a business. Laws are only required because, as history shows, wealthy business owners want/wanted a completely, and in many cases, illegally, tilted playing field.

Unions are a significant part of the reason that there's a middle class at all.

They can try to form a syndicate to force higher rates from Uber. But Uber can just hire different people, problem solved. Clearly there are hundreds of thousands of people willing to drive for Uber. Supply and demand.

I'd be much more sympathetic to a group of drivers who say, we've had it with these low Uber/Lyft rates. Let's form our own ride company, pay ourselves more, and compete with Uber. Get someone to write apps, create websites, do advertising, etc., and then get out there and compete.

That's what makes the wheels of the economy turn around, my friend: competition. Unionizing is like hermetically sealing a container so that nothing gets in, and nothing gets out. A static system that cannot change.

But competition opens new doors, admits new ideas, and who knows? Maybe higher rates for drivers proves to be a competitive advantage and their new company will do very well, forcing Uber and others to raise their own rates.

If higher driver rates are a good thing, then the smart businesses will do it, and succeed. Right?

What do you mean outsourcing has hollowed out programming? You're not able to make a living programming? It's unfair to share the work with other countries?

How could Uber be outsourced?

Without looking at the facts of wages and cost of living, could we not make the same case about the opposers (some investors) of unionization? They are just after $$ right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com