Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.
The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :
Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?
I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer.
> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.
A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions.
The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal.
> Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable.
Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
"...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but
that's not the immediate goal."
"You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions.
They are there for the workers, that might or might not
play out well for the consumer."
To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions?
In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1]
And what do the "consumers" get for that?
The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2]
Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
[1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100...
[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s...
edit: typo
You're welcome to do whatever you like. The way you continue to phrase things is a little odd, though. If you define yourself purely by your role as a consumer an awful lot of stuff in life is going to look pretty odd because it's a limited point of view.
> As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
This is such an odd question. I don't think anyone in the world believes it's your job to create unions. In fact, that's what we all decided at the last meeting. "It is absolutely not wozniacki's job, in his role as a consumer or otherwise, to create unions." We didn't tell you because we were worried you might be offended.
> Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
Are you claiming that union participation among primary school educators correlates strongly with lack of achievement among students? I'm pretty sure the top achieving states in this regard - Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, and so on - have teacher unions.
I lived in California for years and I'm sympathetic to the fact that government there is completely insane. I think an explanation like "it's because of the unions!" is reductionist and too simple.
WUT? Do you play any other role in society than that of consumer? Worker, maybe?
Perhaps you're a Titan of Industry, or a self-employed tinkerer, but society depends on big projects (think about the roads you use...), which require big organizations, which have many more workers than bosses. As consumers, those workers may not support unions, but as workers, I'll bet quite a few do.
As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all.
I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.
Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
> The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars
(1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do
(2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or
(3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve)
And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.
Maybe I should just move to Denmark.
Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them.
Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you:
1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life.
2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or
3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make)
I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.
4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?
Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.
Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-c...
Another example, look at the cost of Metlife Stadium vs. whatever the stadium the Cowboys play in now. it's about 30% HIGHER in cost. Again, no fancy gadgets or beach front property, it's in swampland occupied by highways built by union labor.
Unions historically have done great things for workers and continue to do so. However, they have a habit of forcing corporations to move elsewhere and pissing off non-union laborers as a result.
As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi.
Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...
All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.
and they all have UBER app installed, same app that spies on everything that happens on the phone, fancy that :)
If Uber (or any other company) wants to replace them with self-driving cars, what stops them? My point here is that if self-driving cars have value in the future, they will be a secular trend that will come to pass whether or not a group of drivers are unionized.
The only option a union might have to prevent this is get political power/influence to get lawmakers to prevent new self-driving services from cropping up. But if we go in that direction, you can see what that situation looks like when you see car dealerships and their battles with Tesla.
If self-driving cars become a big reality, no union will save drivers. I sympathize with people losing income opportunities and jobs, but unions do not seem to be a feasible long-term answer here. They might prevent their specific employer from laying them off to replace them with self-driving cars. But they would not be able to stop the overall technological trend.
Crazy, but true.
What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?
Would it be accurate to say centralised technical infrastructure? Simply transferring the data to the US is already probably breaking local data protection laws. I don't think Uber operates a franchise model with local infrastructure so countries are right to be concerned that names, addresses, credit cards and movement of individuals is being stored in a foreign country and open to data-mining and other abuse.
What about the client's rights?
However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
How would the client be informed on issues such as
* proper vehicle maintenance records
* prior criminal record
* history of accidents and insurance claims
* presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident
This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right?
If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum?
The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged.
Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish.
The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.
No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.
Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.
The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not.
So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council.
Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
I've editted the post to more correctly express my opinion (namely the last sentence).
If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.
The actual answer is I can't. Because your life has infinite value to you, because without which you may not acquire any other wealth. I.E.: Your life is worth all the wealthy you may obtain to yourself, or potentially all wealth in existence.
Therefore, what is the quantifiable value of something with inelastic demand? Economics tells us its infinite (or we have to divide by zero to calculate it). But you say otherwise.
You don't have children, this is a thought experiment to demonstrate an argument. You just have you. You're dodging the question.
I find its easier to put a price on the abstract notion of the life of someone you don't know then your own.
It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
[1] is language like that useful?
Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".
Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.
"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.
Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.
I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.
Not every taxi system works as bad as San Francisco's and in some areas (eg in Germany), when counting by the numbers Uber is the bully: tons of money and international reach vs. regional taxi companies with a handful of cars.
People tend to be quite opposed to 'rent-seeking schemes' on hn. Except when it comes to Uber, which is _the_ example of a rent seeking, as the 20% parasite between customers and drivers while trying to tear down the advantages of the existing system that get in their way (safety regulations, accessibility guarantees).
Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.
The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.
I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.
[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.
It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.
This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Correct.
No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.