Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnulinux | Hacker News Reader

What a strange comment.

> Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people

This has nothing to do with stupidity, intelligence or anything like that. This has to do with leverage. A multi-national giant corporation like Uber has a lot of leverage over Brazilian workers. If Uber treats them like figurative slaves and gives them too little money, workers have very little they can do against this. It is government's responsibility to protect people from this power imbalance. Yes Uber should have a freedom to charge/pay whatever market accepts and workers should have freedom to negotiate their own benefits. But at the same time Uber needs to implement a minimum care for their workers, and if not government should be able to enforce them to do so.

View on HN

Drivers are not bound in any way to Uber, Uber won't send slave hunters if they leave the app.

If people continue to drive for Uber, doesn't that mean the app is still a net positive for them, or do you believe people would pay to work?

Your comment is a great example of what the parent comment is saying, the belief that people are too damn dumb and they need protection.

You do not really have an option if all options are bad. And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options.

> And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options.

This is by definition the opposite of what "outcompeted" means.

The option is bad from the employee point of view, bit the company, having smaller expenses can outcompete its competition.

That's true in the market for e.g. rides, but then that's good, customers get lower prices. Meanwhile their competition in the market for labor is mainly the likes of Walmart and Starbucks. There is no plausible mechanism for Uber to "outcompete" Walmart by offering cheaper rides because Walmart isn't in that line of business to begin with.

I believe that people will take deals that don't benefit them. But that's not the point here. The numbers are made up, but say Uber makes 10$ per ride and the driver makes 10$ per ride.

If the drivers get together, they might be able to negotiate 15$ per ride, leaving 5$ per ride for Uber. However, it might be hard for the people to do that, so the government can step in to improve conditions for riders by negotiating for them as a block.

All of this labor theory only applies when you're negotiating with a monopolist. Otherwise the company already has thin margins as a result of needing to compete with other companies -- remember all that stuff about Uber losing money? -- and there is little more they can give you without trading it against something else you want, like flexibility or number of hours.

The primary way they could pay drivers more is by charging higher fares. But then there is lower demand for rides, so they need fewer drivers, so some of the drivers lose their jobs. If you think that's a good trade off then take it now -- quit and go do something else. It will cause the remaining drivers to be able to command higher compensation.

Everybody wants to be the one to get paid more and not the one who loses their job, but some of them will necessarily be wrong.

> or do you believe people would pay to work?

Given that people fall for scams that take money in return for a fake promise of employment, yes, I do.

Aside from that, what is your limiting principle? Where is the power imbalance line between an employer and employee too much for this principle to bear?

It doesn’t exist. The people would stop working for the employer. They would work in other business. Perhaps work for those in direct competition to The Employer. The Employer would go out of business.

This is the kind of libertarian drivel I thought would be out of fashion by now. This isn't the naive early 2000s internet anymore. In the real world labor markets are not perfectly competitive, from non-compete clauses, to no-poaching agreements, to skillset mismatches, to a dozen other major factors increasing employer market power.

You’re right. The government puts restrictions on businesses that give established entities a competitive advantage. The government could end non competes. Some have. I’m not for no government. I’m for government of, for and by the people. Corporations are not and never will be people. They are contracting entities.

Except rampant inequality enforces the power imbalance between the prospective employer and employee. Even without protection from competitors, established players will crush or absorb competition.

This listing overlooks one of the biggest imbalances that lots of folks seem to overlook: employer monopsony. There are big chunks of the country where one dominant employer effectively controls employment, either directly or indirectly through the ability to pressure suppliers. Piss off the wrong person and you have a problem.

Of course, people born in those places can theoretically vote with their feet, although most people seem to find that much easier said than done.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/pag...

Who enforces the non-compete clauses, to no-poaching agreements ? - The govt. Remove the enforcer and not many employees will honor a non-compete.

I said I don’t call for the abolition of the government. I want to reign it in. I want it to focus on a smaller set of regulations.

We are essentially on the same page. I was specifically responding to 'darwinwhy' . Infact I want employees to break non-compete agreements if they can get away with it because of it's somewhat inherent unfairness.

Disclaimer: I work for Uber and I'm brazilian. Opinions are my own, etc.

What the GP is criticizing is that they see this as a power move to increase government income through taxes. The underbrush is that this money is then stolen by corrupt government officials (it's common perception in brazil that that's just the way the brazilian government works).

In this light, Uber is just the sucker-du-jour who gets to be "screwed over" in the latest corruption ploy.

Uber's perspective in this type of matter is that there are a large number of drivers who don't do ridesharing full time or even on a consistent part time basis (for example, one's free to do it once or twice ever). An apt comparison might be someone who sells stuff on craigslist - yes you can do it full time, but people often do it for just extra cash, without considering it a "job" per se. So you can see why Uber might not like to restrict driving opportunities only to those who are willing to commit to a full-time employment arrangement.

With all this said, I'm all for having drivers who are effectively working full time hours to be able to earn a reasonable income. I'm not too familiar w/ the state of lobbying in Brazil, but my understanding is that Uber is going to be lobbying in the US for a third employment category and one of the talking points of that proposal is to work towards income improvements for drivers. The position that drivers are not employees goes both ways: if they are considered Uber's clients, it behooves that Uber should do its darn best to provide the platform with the best payouts in the industry, lest drivers would flock to a better paying competitor.

>workers should have freedom to negotiate their own benefits

This is likely where the comment of laws treating the workers as stupid people comes from - Brazilian labour laws are very rigid with an amazing amount of restrictions around negotiating different benefits, working hours, etc. If, however, you earn a higher salary then you fit into a different category of labour laws and are allowed more flexibility. The thinking seems to be "if you earn under this amount you probably didn't receive a good enough education to know what is good for you". Sometimes that may be true, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com