Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnu8 | Hacker News Reader

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service.

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.

View on HN

>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.

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.

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

No, if all the services are unionized, those same unions will then use every means possible to get new laws passed that say you can't have a driver-less taxi. They won't just go quietly, as they watch robots take over, just like taxi drivers aren't now when confronted with uber.

Not every union is a political powerhouse capable of doing such. Eventually you'll reach a point where it becomes economically feasible for a company to wholesale fire it's drivers and roll out it's fleet of driverless cars. It's certainly possible that a union could push for a law against such, but that sounds a bit more like fear-mongering and an anti-union bias than anything else.

Not only that but they will drive the whole efficient and affordability premise into the ground just for the betterment of their drivers. In this case, with the competition being what it is, it would be more for the detriment.

This is a lot of anti-union FUD. Unions generally now don't seek to ban or outlaw non-union operations in the same field. Remember there are A LOT of unions and behaviors and platforms of various unions range widely.

As a resident of New Jersey, please, no more unions.

Maybe I'm skewed - I'm from South Carolina - but I don't necessarily view unions as a monstrosity, surprisingly. I do hear the horror stories, but there must be some middle ground.

There's definitely a middle ground. I have a couple friends who are in unions, and they're very pro-union. They don't claim they're perfect, just that it's sure better than not having one.

I can certainly imagine why they would love their unions. They are great for the people, but shit for our states economy. Unfortunately, they have such lobby power it's tough to stop them here.

I find it amazing how well working-class unions have been demonized in modern American society. Especially when this[1] is happening. There was a comment on another post a few days/weeks ago about how the AMA and bar associations are basically unions for professionals that have avoided this demonization and that the software industry ought to consider something similar to prevent the fixing of wages and the depressing of wages using foreign workers. If such unionization directly benefited you, would you be in support of it then? (honest question)

[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-c...

Who wouldn't? But for every good thing about unions I can name you a bad. It's a matter of the individual and how they are effected. As an example, look at Camden, NJ. Most of it's industry vacated for other states because union labor in New Jersey is extraordinarily high (and powerful).

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.

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable:

(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.

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about.

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.

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.

That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life.

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?

"I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life."

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?

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility.

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 wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose.

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.

If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!

I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people.

Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.

4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities".

4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.

I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr.

Maybe I should just move to Denmark.

Or build/support the things that expose the cracks in the prevailing political/social wisdom :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on.

Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.

Did you miss the comment I originally responded to?

> The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars

If the lower classes are having to work three jobs, it's because of the scarcity of housing, not self-driving cars. Most poor people's biggest monthly expense is rent. An oversupply of housing would go a long way towards helping them.

Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.

In the US at least: meanwhile, China overbuilds housing to the point where ghost cities (not just towns, cities) are scattered across the country.

Yeah but in this case no one who works for Uber is forced to actually do any work. This is an ad hoc, "I feel like making a few extra bones" type deal where they provide an affordable and convenient service to the populace. To say they are being exploited is wildly dramatic.

If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time.

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.

> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.

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."

Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?

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

> Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?

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.

> Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?

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.

There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this.

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.

Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.

Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.

Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Isn't this essentially how Wal Mart operates in the US today?

When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.

> 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.

before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars

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.

> Uber really just provides technical infrastructure

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.

Drivers already keep 80% of their fares through Uber.

If you were playing poker at a casino, would you be content if the dealer took 20% of every pot?

If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage.

What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?

You misinterpreted the poker analogy. When 20% is taken out of every pot, that includes the ones you lose. It doesn't mean you win with an 80% rate. When the rake is 20%, basically half the entire table's money is gone after 3-4 hours. (If you're going to criticize an analogy, you better understand the analogy.)

Many mobile developers defend Apple taking their 30% cut.

Crazy, but true.

>they all have smartphones

and they all have UBER app installed, same app that spies on everything that happens on the phone, fancy that :)

Unionize? What for? They aren't forced to work for Uber. Organize? The very same people, many of whom never did this type of work before, let alone organize, you expect them to step up and try to?

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.

There's already been one organised protest when Uber tried to screw the drivers. Uber backed down. Seemed quite effective really.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...

> 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.

All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com