Hacker News Reader

Comment by grapevines | Hacker News Reader

Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws.

I think it's important to remember that in the current case, we are dealing with a single company doing business as a US corporation, but in the theoretical case, we could be dealing with a peer-to-peer network where the prices-per-ride are determined in the decentralized market. Crush uber with union laws, City restrictions, taxes, and other regulations, and a successor will fill the void which cannot be brought down so easily.

It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement.

Like many unions today, the intent is to cement the power of the status-quo and raise the barrier of entry for new drivers.

View on HN

> it is entirely an at-will engagement

Yes but one side has significantly more leverage, bargaining power and resources to skew the contract in their favor than the other.

We don't think a large multinational and a 1-person shop have the same bargain power and access to markets, nor do we generally consider the US and Lichtenstein to have equal powers. Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.

> Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.

I didn't see anyone here say that.

Furthermore, the existence of a power imbalance does not mean that the particular set of regulations imposed on Uber by Seattle are a good idea. It is entirely possible in these kinds of situations that the power imbalance is bad but the proposed solutions are worse.

I think it's worth trying in Seattle. A few years from now Seattle can be compared to other cities and we can try to figure out what the effects of the regulations are. If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again.

> If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again.

The problem is, that's not the way it works. Bad regulations are rarely replaced in our political system. Bad regulations often get votes or legalize rent-seeking by interest groups, such as unions, who have political clout. It is much harder to reverse bad regulations than to avoid them in the first place, and that's why it is so important to oppose them in their early stages.

> it is so important to oppose them in their early stages

Meh. This is one city and not a particularly conservative one. If a change needs to be made in five or ten years, they will make it. There's a decent chance the regulations will have a net positive effect so run the experiment and lets see what happens.

Yup.

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.” ― Calvin Coolidge

Private sector unions typically have less clout. We'll see if this case is any different.

So will the union rules only apply to large multinationals? Or will they also be applied to smaller startups with significantly less power than the new union will have?

any valid contract can only be signed by willing parties. if one party doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to enter into it.

>It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement.

What about "dumping"?

> Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws.

By "new approach" you mean quasi slavery? no. workers will always have to fight for their rights.

And large companies will always have to combat that by buying politicians. In the end nobody wins.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com