Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.
Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.
I have no issues with people unionizing, I think they should use their free association power as they see fit. What I take issue with is the "exploitation" framing. Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
A union using their power to increase workers wages is not "reducing exploitation" they are using their bargaining power just as selfishly as corporations do.
When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening, its two parties negotiating and coming to an agreement.
> When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening
So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?
> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.
yes, that is why price gouging and monopolies are illegal and employment agreements are not.
so again, unless you think all trade is exploitative, im not understanding your argument. Selling labor for money is the exact same transaction as walking into Walmart and buying a banana.
> Selling labor for money is the exact same transaction as walking into Walmart and buying a banana.
In the same comment you say that the government has to help guarantee that Walmart won't exploit you in this banana purchase transaction by outlawing price gouging and monopolization. If labor is the same type of transaction, it stands to reason that certain types of employment can be exploitative, despite the 'voluntary nature' of the transaction. Is your issue with the 'Uber exploits their contractors' framing simply based in the fact that Uber has not broken any labor laws?
Since you're having trouble following me I'll give a quick summary here. You initially said:
> if all these drivers are getting horribly exploited why are they doing it?
My point is simply that this is crap reasoning: people voluntarily participate in exploitative interactions all the time if they lack genuine alternatives.
> No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.
Seems like kind of a pilot-program nationwide TBH. The article links to another article last year about an MA ballot measure which made it possible for gig-work drivers to unionize in the first place (since independent contractors aren't covered by the NLRB at a federal level). It seems that the state labor board intends to sponsor the negotiation process, and per the ballot measure text would be responsible for figuring out what to do if negotiations broke down. Summary of the question is here, if you're interested (full text of the law is linked there): https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications...
This is the key: Drivers now have the Commonwealth of Massachusetts arbitrating any dispute over their collective demands. Everyone knows how this is going to turn out.
It's not goodwill though, I'm paying for public services like the fire department through my taxes. I like them to be owned by the government instead of a private entity because I don't want to pay the capitalist rent for borrowing their money; if we pool our resources we can cut out the middle-man and just fund it ourselves. Very typical human living arrangement I believe.
Just one thing: the government is a massive private entity and a middle man. The closest thing to the stated goal would be a contract between other insterested parties to pool resources for funding. The next one would be a local consumer co-op explicitly formed for that specific purpose.
A robust and aggressive consumer protections bureau is a handy way for me to feel secure while doing basic economic operations, without having to handle a ton of one-off research on my own. For example I'm strongly in favor of medical licensure, it seems nuts to me to say like "if an adult consented to a surgery who's the state to quibble over whether the surgical tools were properly sterilized". Similarly gambling licenses seem like a reasonable regulation to ensure honest behavior in an industry with many avenues for corruption and double-dealing (or at least provide legal avenues for recompense in cases where the house deviates from the guidelines required by their licensure).
> It's trendy to blame cars for this but the problem is fundamentally zoning
> you thereby need a car to leave the vicinity in order to get anywhere you can.
I hear your point but I think your causal model is misguided. It's two different things augmenting each other, not "one is a more primal cause than the other" (in my opinion, anyways). Like yes road diets in the suburbs won't 'solve' the problem by themselves, but the impact of the zoning changes you're pointing to may also have the impact of reducing car dependency in the area (although not guaranteed, I've seen USians drive even just half a mile). Cars collapse distance, and zoning policy eats up those gains greedily. SFH zoning spaces everything 10 miles apart, so all the residents buy cars because there's no alternatives. It's multiple threads reinforcing each other; I think if you dig into the ""trendy"" anti-car arguments you will find a lot of backing for mixed-used zoning policy as well because both types of changes are needed at once.
...A few weeks ago, while Congress was in recess, I visited Morgan County, Georgia, where Meta is building a massive data center campus. They are clear cutting forests and began heavy construction, including explosive blasting, and families in the area are starting to see not only their water pressure decrease, to your point about water availability, but their appliances have all stopped working because it is decimating their water quality.
They now rely on bottled water to drink and prepare meals, and nearby residents' water bills are expected to increase by 33%. In fact, I have a jar right here. This is the current drinking water in Morgan County, Georgia, right after a data center was constructed, the Meta data center was constructed.
...
Is that before or after the program achieves profitability?
reply