# Bloomberg lays out the case why uber/lyft drivers should unionize



## makes_sense (Sep 26, 2014)

Ride-hailing apps are surging in popularity, but the legal status of drivers who earn a living from them remains unresolved. Companies like Uber and Lyft contend that, because drivers are independent contractors and not employees under the U.S.'s various labor and employment laws, any attempt to form unions or bargain collectively for higher wages violates antitrust laws.

Until now, that assumption has been widely shared - but it's based on a failure to understand why concerted activity by workers is protected against antitrust liability. Labor's antitrust shield was established by the 1914 Clayton Act, in which Congress determined that "the labor of a human being is not an article in commerce." A two-year-old Seattle ordinance, now in federal litigation, provides an opportunity for courts to extend these century-old labor rights to workers in the digital economy.

Conventionally, only workers defined as "employees" are viewed as having the right to organize without violating antitrust laws. Individuals are considered employees only if their boss can control when and how they do their work - what is called the common law's "right to control" test.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-16/the-case-for-letting-uber-drivers-organize

Human drivers arent going anywhere https://washingtonpost.com/news/inn...es-robot-driven-vehicle-of-negligent-driving/

https://washingtonpost.com/news/inn...es-robot-driven-vehicle-of-negligent-driving/


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Oh God, not this crap again.


----------



## Lunger (Sep 13, 2017)

Because the Union bosses need your money.
Because the Democrats need Union Boss money.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Lunger said:


> Because the Union bosses need your money.
> Because the Democrats need Union Boss money.


I have a statistical fact for you, even after union dues are paid, union works make more per hour than non union works, on the whole.

If we had a union, we would be earning enough money to justify the wear and tear on our vehicles. Until we get a union, we will continue to be exploited. With a union in America, we could use that unifying power to demand more pay. The argument that it would put Uber out of business is false, it would make Uber profitable by forcing Uber to raise the customer rate that would mean more money for Uber, and more money for drivers. those who argue it would shrink the customer base, they don't understand that the current customer base is arbitrarily and artificially high, i.e., not what bona fide market driven customer base should be if a profit making model were installed ( like it should have been in the first place), given the arbitrary and artificially low rates, set by Uber under the false believe that riding in a Uber should be cheaper than owning a car, which pulls many customers from shuttle riders and bus riders, and thus raising the rate closer to what a taxi charges, would cause the customer base to shift to real world levels and price sustainable models that would be a win win for both Uber and drivers. Those riders that complain, they are cheapskates who would return to using shuttles and buses (whom we should have never wanted in the first place --- but Uber execs, being techies and not transportation people, do not understand what a taxi/vehicle-for-hire's true demographic is ), and the customers that are willing to pay for cabs and town cars, would continue to use Uber because our service is superior to taxis.


----------



## Lunger (Sep 13, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> I have a statistical fact for you, even after union dues are paid, union works make more per hour than non union works, on the whole.
> 
> If we had a union, we would be earning enough money to justify the wear and tear on our vehicles. Until we get a union, we will continue to be exploited. With a union in America, we could use that unifying power to demand more pay. The argument that it would put Uber out of business is false, it would make Uber profitable by forcing Uber to raise the customer rate that would mean more money for Uber, and more money for drivers. those who argue it would shrink the customer base, they don't understand that the current customer base is arbitrarily and artificially high, i.e., not what bona fide market driven customer base should be if a profit making model were installed ( like it should have been in the first place), given the arbitrary and artificially low rates, set by Uber under the false believe that riding in a Uber should be cheaper than owning a car, which pulls many customers from shuttle riders and bus riders, and thus raising the rate closer to what a taxi charges, would cause the customer base to shift to real world levels and price sustainable models that would be a win win for both Uber and drivers. Those riders that complain, they are cheapskates who would return to using shuttles and buses (whom we should have never wanted in the first place --- but Uber execs, being techies and not transportation people, do not understand what a taxi/vehicle-for-hire's true demographic is ), and the customers that are willing to pay for cabs and town cars, would continue to use Uber because our service is superior to taxis.


How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.

No one wants your poison here. **** off!


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

Yea, **** them union thugs. Giving us things like 8 hour days and 5 day work weeks, or even that bullshit worker safety crap. Oh and dont forget about those pesky child labor laws or livable wages. The nerve of those assholes. We should be looking at how apple runs their factories in china.


----------



## makes_sense (Sep 26, 2014)

Lunger said:


> How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.
> 
> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


https://jalopnik.com/a-third-of-car-trade-ins-are-now-utterly-worthless-on-p-1822443820


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

Lunger said:


> How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.
> 
> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


Wow


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Lunger said:


> How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.
> 
> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


Just want this forum needs, another arbiter of what others believe, as if you are speaking for everyone on this forum, and you most certainly are not.

I've heard that right wing logic for years, and I got bad news for you, a majority of the electorate do not agree with you. My "joining the union and sending money to the mob" it is not policy, and public policy is all that matters in this argument.

Uber has no contract with Teamsters, so no can do. Not all unions are owned by the mob, that's nuts. Teamsters and the Mob doesn't have anywhere near the grip in my city, as they do in others, there is no reason to assume any contract would be with that particular outfit. By the way, the Teamsters supported Reagan in Bush, and I didn't seem these guys return any money, though in recent years, they are supporting democrats. But, they aren't the only Union around, there is the AFL /CIO. Again, I repeat, apparently the inconvenient fact that Union workers are paid substantially more than non-union workers, this is after dues are paid, hasn't arrived to your brain. Not much I can do about that, you know the old saying, you can take an ass to water, but you can't make the the ass drink ( oh, I meant donkey, I was using the Biblical moniker ).

Some people are not in a strong bargaining position, and Uber knows this and takes advantage of them, it's called exploitation. It's the reason we have a minimum wage, to prevent exploitation. I say that rideshare is a special class of 1099, we are more like employees though we are looked upon as "entrepeneurs". I say this because if that were true, we would have, as in any business, up side potential, would should be able to get our own customers, purchase more cars, hire drivers, expand, but that is simply not the case. We are not allowed to solicit our own customers, etc., so we have all the burdens of being in business, but none of the benefits. That could be corrected with a strong union bargaining for drivers, but guys like you would rather drivers live in poverty. Legislation, achieved by a Union lobby, could force Uber to pay drivers a mileage allowance for vehicles, just like many more equitable companies pay workers who use private vehicles in conjunction with work.

In my city, owing largely to the rate being half of what a taxi is, it's understandable why Uber gobbled up all the customers. Sure, Uber does better on the service side, but price is the largest factor in decision making when it comes to rides. SuperShuttle used to have 80 vans in in my City, now they have 50, and they are slightly cheaper than Uber, but you have to share the ride with 5 other people, maybe more, but the point is SuperShuttle has weathered the onslaught of rideshares a lot better than taxis have due to the fact that they are still cheap, though inconvenient to ride in, so the taxi business would have shrunk some, but no where near as much but for the artificially low rates of Uber.

In my own situation, given my being a senior, and a resume that isn't that great, I have not much prospects to replace this job. But, I'm working on it, for sure, in the mean time, I still must eat, but my bargaining position isn't strong, so I must accept what Uber dishes out which is very little. I can't just quit. The libertarian/conservative brain thinks we can just say no, and walk off the lot. What frickin' dumbass planet do you guys live on? Though I'm working on it as soon as I'm able to. There are many people like me working for Uber, and quitting isn't that easy, no where near as easy as guys like you think it is, but apparently this is difficult for the conservative/libertarian brain to grasp.

That Uber can exploit drivers and get away with it doesn't mean it's right. When Uber doesn't pay drivers enough money to justify their wear on tear on their vehicles, they are getting a free ride on the backs of drivers. The rates are artificially low because billionaires can weather losing money for a long time, until SDCs take them to the promised land (though I'm willing to bet it will be one big boondoggle, and least for the next few years --- it took the horseless carriage 23 years to fully take over at the early part of the last century). If Uber owned these vehicles, you can bet your rooty patooty they would be charging more than they are, but since the burden of overhead is on the driver's shoulders, they charge very little. A strong Union would put an end to that. Oh, some will argue it might put Uber out of business. Fine by my, I made twice what I am making down driving a cab before uber came along. If ridershares go, I got no problem with that, to be honest. I'd just go back to driving for Yellow Cab. In fact, medallions are only $3k ( they used to be over $100K in San Diego ) I'm thinking of buying one and holding onto it just in case rideshares do fold, then those medallions would go right back up in value. Rideshares are losing billions every year, how long can that be sustained? We shall see.



crookedhalo said:


> Yea, &%[email protected]!* them union thugs. Giving us things like 8 hour days and 5 day work weeks, or even that bullshit worker safety crap. Oh and dont forget about those pesky child labor laws or livable wages. The nerve of those assholes. We should be looking at how apple runs their factories in china.


My gawd, I love sarcasm


----------



## makes_sense (Sep 26, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> Just want this forum needs, another arbiter of what others believe, as if you are speaking for everyone on this forum, and you most certainly are not.
> 
> I've heard that right wing logic for years, and I got bad news for you, a majority of the electorate do not agree with you. My "joining the union and sending money to the mob" it is not policy, and public policy is all that matters in this argument.
> 
> ...


 great post


----------



## Lunger (Sep 13, 2017)

crookedhalo said:


> Yea, &%[email protected]!* them union thugs. Giving us things like 8 hour days and 5 day work weeks, or even that bullshit worker safety crap. Oh and dont forget about those pesky child labor laws or livable wages. The nerve of those assholes. We should be looking at how apple runs their factories in china.


Yeah. We have labor law and OSHA. Why do we have Unions? Apple doens't run factories in China and Foxconn doesn't employ kids.



Oscar Levant said:


> A strong Union would put an end to that.


If you don't like it; quit. Problem solved. You will stop being exploited by evil, evil billionaires and the rest of us will not have to listen to you drone on about the outdated notion of union membership.

Its a win/win

Although I would like to hear how Medallion owners were not exploiting drivers...


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Lunger said:


> Yeah. We have labor law and OSHA. Why do we have Unions? Apple doens't run factories in China and Foxconn doesn't employ kids.
> 
> If you don't like it; quit. Problem solved. You will stop being exploited by evil, evil billionaires and the rest of us will not have to listen to you drone on about the outdated notion of union membership.
> 
> ...


I explained thoroughly why that's a bulshitt argument.


----------



## Lunger (Sep 13, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> I explained thoroughly why that's a bulshitt argument.


No. No, you haven't. I read just a wall of dogma that cries about 'the little guy'. Unions are just another layer of governance for the weak and frightened. Unions have done nothing but harm the cities and state where they have a stranglehold - most notably in the form of underfunded pensions and political kickbacks. Unions should be outlawed as a public menace. In the end they will have caused irreparable harm to the 'little guys' that they exploit under the guise fairness.

You can take your union and stick it up your ass.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Lunger said:


> How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.
> 
> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


The value of unions can be debated, but your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.

A worker who's mistreated by their employer is being exploited. The fact that no one is forcing that worker to stay at their job doesn't change that fact.

You and other Uber shills always try to make a big deal out of the fact that Uber isn't forcing people to drive for them, and that drivers are free to quit anytime they want. Wow, isn't that nice of Uber to allow that.

In case you haven't noticed, no company, whether they're McDonalds, Walmart, Ford, etc, can "force" people to work for them. And amazing as it may seem, workers are free to quit any of those companies at any time.


----------



## JerseyJay (Jan 28, 2018)

Lunger bring me to my next point, don't smoke crack and watch FOX all day.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Lunger said:


> No. No, you haven't. I read just a wall of dogma that cries about 'the little guy'. Unions are just another layer of governance for the weak and frightened. Unions have done nothing but harm the cities and state where they have a stranglehold - most notably in the form of underfunded pensions and political kickbacks. Unions should be outlawed as a public menace. In the end they will have caused irreparable harm to the 'little guys' that they exploit under the guise fairness.
> 
> You can take your union and stick it up your ass.


Oh really? That's the intellectual prowess you want to display on this forum?

Your brain is a bucket full of thought terminating clichés.

The median weekly income of full-time wage and salary workers who were union members in 2010 was $917, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For nonunion workers, it was $717.

That's a difference of $10,000 per year more for union workers, on the whole, not to mention more benefits.

The right has been in power for a enough years to destroy unions, keep them from growing, and what is the result? As unions have declined, income inequality as grown in direct inverse proportions:

http://www.epi.org/files/2012/snapshot-unionmembership.png&w=608

But, of course, to right wing nuts and libertarians that's a good thing, eh?

So, you want drivers to continue to be exploited, brilliant.

You sound like a right wing nut. Well, we've got those soulless right wingers in office, and they are destroying the presidency and America's standing in the world. DJT is a scumbag.

Nothing you said changes the irrefutable fact that unions have resulted in higher pay and benefits, and that, for me, is all that matters and if they piss off a few fat cats in board rooms, fine by me.

And, if we were unionized, and the union compelled the billionaires Uber to compensate us a livable rate, one that would compensate us for wear and tear of out vehicles, how is that a bad thing? What other way can that be achieved? You tell me? Well, there is no other way. God forbid we deprive a few billionaires a few spoonfuls of caviar so drivers don't have to go on foodstamps, or quit for some other job where they exploit you just as much. I know, the righties answer is always "go to college and get a better job". That's frickin' stupid, and you know why? Not everyone is the college type, some of us like blue collar gigs, it's who we are, and does that give the college crowd and fat cats in board rooms the right to exploit us? Hell no.

You make no sense, but only to right wing nuts who foolishly believe that an unregulated free market is the panacea for everything

got bad news for you, the right is shrinking. , America is becoming more diverse, leaning more and more to the left.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Just want this forum needs, another arbiter of what others believe, as if you are speaking for everyone on this forum, and you most certainly are not.
> 
> I've heard that right wing logic for years, and I got bad news for you, a majority of the electorate do not agree with you. My "joining the union and sending money to the mob" it is not policy, and public policy is all that matters in this argument.
> 
> ...


I can tell you that organized crime is alive and doing OK. Where there is money, scumbags will try to grab a piece. Unions may provide higher compensation for some workers. But there are 2 sides to every coin. Unions are parasites, they suck money from those they are supposed to enrich. Unions increase the price to the consumer. Unions create unemployment. Factor in a higher employment rate for non-unionized workers and the pay may look different. Is it better to have 5 employees making $5 and hour or 2 employees making $10 an hour? I'll bet the 2 employed union workers think the union is great. The 3 unemployed workers may not agree. Then factor in the arbitrary and artificial wage the unionized workers make and its contribution to inflation.

Some people may not be a strong bargaining position. Whose fault is that? Surely not the TNC's. Trying to shape TNC's business model to fit someone's ideal job is the tail wagging the dog. Their business, their rules. Want to make the rules? Start a business that can make the rules. Unfortunately, government regulations prevent TNC drivers from being proper business owners. We can't get our own customers, we can't accept street hails, etc. Its not the TNC's that prevent this, its government regulations. And liberals/socialists want more government regulations? Ugh.

Stage coach drivers probably hated Henry Ford. Should the stage coach drivers have unionized and forced the stage coach companies to pay a certain rate? Of course not, it would have hastened the inevitable. Take a look at how the union nearly put GM and Hostess out of business. We almost couldn't eat Twinkies in a Caddy. Unions reduce a companies flexibility and ability to conform to a changing market.

A liberal/socialist's position is to force a higher rate to the drivers. Naturally, the TNC would have to raise the rate to the riders and alienating some riders. Fewer riders means fewer rides.

Why do liberal/socialists believe they can run a business better than the business? Exploitation has a negative connotation. But I exploit Walmart for their low prices as compared to their competition. If I hire an employee, I'll exploit them. I'll expect to earn more profit with them than without them. Should I be forced to pay them an amount so that I don't receive any additional profit? Should I be forced to pay them an amount that forces me to raise my rates? My rates are already so high that I only work 10 hours a week due to lack of work. If I'm willing to pay $5 an hour and someone is willing to work for $5 an hour, what right does anyone have to say we're both wrong? Each person acting voluntarily in their own best interest serves the economy best. Force is counter productive and brings contempt for the enforcers.

It may sound like I'm anti-union. I'm not. I'm an anti-force. I'm a member of a state wide coalition of independent contractors. We hired a lobbyist. We effected changes in the law. What the coalition did hurt my business due to the principle of unintended consequences. Some in my field complained about not being paid promptly. So a law was made that my clients had to post a $10,000 bond to the state before doing business. The effect was to eliminate all but the biggest and richest companies from doing business in my state. I lost all my small clients. Be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.

The USA has the natural resources to build cars. Shipping costs are very high. GM pays its American workers $58/hr. Mexican auto workers get $8/hr. Guess where factories are being built, resources shipped to, the work is being done, and the finished product shipped back to.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

bsliv said:


> I can tell you that organized crime is alive and doing OK. Where there is money, scumbags will try to grab a piece. Unions may provide higher compensation for some workers. But there are 2 sides to every coin. Unions are parasites, they suck money from those they are supposed to enrich. Unions increase the price to the consumer. Unions create unemployment. Factor in a higher employment rate for non-unionized workers and the pay may look different. Is it better to have 5 employees making $5 and hour or 2 employees making $10 an hour? I'll bet the 2 employed union workers think the union is great. The 3 unemployed workers may not agree. Then factor in the arbitrary and artificial wage the unionized workers make and its contribution to inflation.
> 
> Some people may not be a strong bargaining position. Whose fault is that? Surely not the TNC's. Trying to shape TNC's business model to fit someone's ideal job is the tail wagging the dog. Their business, their rules. Want to make the rules? Start a business that can make the rules. Unfortunately, government regulations prevent TNC drivers from being proper business owners. We can't get our own customers, we can't accept street hails, etc. Its not the TNC's that prevent this, its government regulations. And liberals/socialists want more government regulations? Ugh.
> 
> ...


You don't know what you're talking about.

Prohibitions against street hails aren't "lefty" policies, they're bipartisan ones.

Plenty of self-described "free market" GOP politicians have worked to keep that corrupt policy in place. Check out Milwaukee, for instance.

Bipartisan bribery (campaign contributions) have kept taxi medallions in place for a zillion years.

Uber is a dishonest, unethical company who mistreats their drivers (bad pay, lying, sneaking, unjust firings, shorting pay, spying,etc, etc, etc) because THEY CAN.

In rare moment of honesty, one of their executives said they pay their drivers poorly because they CAN. Uber hurriedly disavowed that comment and said they believe in doing the right thing and they don't operate like that, which is yet another one of their lies.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You fail to comprehend that.

Our govt policy of continuing to allow high rates of Third World immigration provides Uber the ability to treat their drivers poorly.

Govt failure to enforce laws on independent contractors also provides leverage for Uber.

Fortunately, there are some ETHICAL companies such as Southwest Airlines, that treat their employees with respect, because the founder believes it's the right thing to do. Southwest also happens to be a very successful business.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.


Thanks for the personal attack. Those that attack the messenger often have a problem attacking the message. Case in point ...

Socialists want the government to control the economy. Economists believe the market will control itself. They believe where the supply curve meets the demand curve is the equilibrium point. The equilibrium point is where we should strive to be. That point is constantly changing. Laws seldom change. Let the market do its job. I'm firmly in the economist's camp. Let the price of bread fluctuate according to supply and demand. Setting a minimum or maximum price is misguided at best.

A free market economist will not prevent street hails. Governments stop it. I don't care if one has a D or an R after their name. It doesn't matter. You think Republicans want free trade? Look at the 20% protectionist tariff our president instituted. That is not a free market. What does matter is the law they create. Don't blame the TNC for the law. Of the 535 members of the US congress, 1 has an advanced degree in economics. And socialists trust the government? This country was founded on a distrust of government, hence the 3 branches that check each other. That distrust should continue. They are out for themselves, not the public. Any government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take all you have.

How ethical is it to throw me and my employee in prison for doing something we both agree upon that is fair?

Tear down the walls to immigration and employment. Competition is good. I shouldn't have to pay 1 penny more than I have to, and I don't. Uber shouldn't pay 1 penny more than they have to. That's business. If one wants to live in a commune, go ahead. Just don't force me to live there too. Voluntary actions by citizens is always preferable to a citizen being forced to an action. Remove the regulations that hinder competition. I don't think Uber could handle real competition. I fear our government may see Uber as too big to fail and bail them out. Our government has no authority to bail out businesses but does so anyway. Trust government? Increase the size and scope of the government? Give me a break - not higher taxes and more prisons.

How did the private sector of our economy handle the recent government shutdown? I'd say pretty good. If that was a 'shutdown', it should be permanent.

It would be nice if flipping burgers allowed one to raise a family, buy a new car, buy a new house, etc. The economic fact is it isn't. Its an entry level job best suited for someone with few other skills. If society says every job should pay at least middle class wages, the middle class becomes the poor class.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Thanks for the personal attack. Those that attack the messenger often have a problem attacking the message. Case in point ...
> 
> Socialists want the government to control the economy. Economists believe the market will control itself. They believe where the supply curve meets the demand curve is the equilibrium point. The equilibrium point is where we should strive to be. That point is constantly changing. Laws seldom change. Let the market do its job. I'm firmly in the economist's camp.
> 
> ...


You need thicker skin if you think being told you don't know what you're talking about is a personal attack.

There's a big difference between free trade, which I support, and free immigration, which I oppose.

If we were to let everyone in the world who can reach our shores stay here, the result would be catastrophic.

The vast majority of Americans are socialist by your definition, because they support a social safety net of one extent or another.

My point, which you failed to address stands. Uber is an unethical entity.

Just because Uber has the leverage (provided by the govt) to treat drivers poorly doesn't mean they should.

Apparently you choose not to address that point.

It appears Ayn Rand is your guru.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> You need thicker skin if you think being told you don't know what you're talking about is a personal attack.
> 
> There's a big difference between free trade, which I support, and free immigration, which I oppose.
> 
> ...


If you would have addressed my opinion instead of me, I wouldn't need thicker skin.

I believe the vast majority of Americans have socialists ideas, especially if they receive the benefits. On the other hand, if you phrase the question as, "Do you believe you should pay your neighbor so they can stay home and play video games instead of working?" might get a different result. The popularity of an idea doesn't necessarily make the idea good or bad, just popular. It was popular to think the earth was flat. Some still do.

Uber may or not be unethical, it a matter of opinion. Does a business have to go above and beyond the terms of a contract to prove to be ethical? If I thought a business was unethical, I'd take my business elsewhere. Some think killing an animal for food is unethical. Fine. But if they eat steak, they should expect to be called a hypocrite.

Where would Uber be without drivers? Where would drivers be without Uber? Who has the leverage?

I'd take Rand over Marx any day. But I only know Rand's fiction. I know what Marxism leads to. I know that the Nobel prize winner in economics in 1976 was an authority on economics and his ideas are just as valid today. Since I officially became an economics student in 1978, I might be biased but don't think so. Friedman writes: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I can tell you that organized crime is alive and doing OK. Where there is money, scumbags will try to grab a piece. Unions may provide higher compensation for some workers. But there are 2 sides to every coin.


Noting that the axiom doen't imply that another side to the argument is better, just that there is another side.



> Unions are parasites, they suck money from those they are supposed to enrich. Unions increase the price to the consumer. Unions create unemployment. Factor in a higher employment rate for non-unionized workers and the pay may look different. ...


All of your assertions have been debunked. And Unions most certainly do not cause inflation, even your god of libertarianism, Milton Friedman, tells us that inflation is the result of too much money chasing two few goods ( i.e., the increase of the money supply faster than the rate of GNP ) and everything else, including demands for wage increases, are the consequence, not the cause.

You cannot impose on the macro what seems logical in the micro. The dynamics are wholly different. No one is recommending doubling tripling or quadrupling the minimum wage. There are quite a few auto jobs still in America. Yes, there is a threshold of wages if crossed, will impose too great of a burden, and no one is recommending that. Creating strawman arguments are a logical fallacy.

Cheaper labor abroad has resulted in jobs lost, true, but other jobs are created, all that happens is that America does what it does best, and people train for those jobs, and displaced workers eventually move on. With all the jobs lost overseas, American unemployment is about the same level now as it was before all the jobs were lost, so all that has happened is job displacement. The theory, in fact, looked in the macro and over time, simply is not true.



> Some people may not be a strong bargaining position. Whose fault is that? Surely not the TNC's.


So, you would blame a dandelion for not being a sunflower?
It's a dog eat dog world in libertarian land, right? Who cares about the little dandelion, shiit, it should get off it's duff and become a sunflower, you know, rearrange is genetic code, easy, right? Surely, the dandelion is a lazy little shiit for not becoming a sunflower, right?



> Trying to shape TNC's business model to fit someone's ideal job is the tail wagging the dog.  Their business, their rules. Want to make the rules? Start a business that can make the rules. Unfortunately, government regulations prevent TNC drivers from being proper business owners. We can't get our own customers, we can't accept street hails, etc. Its not the TNC's that prevent this, its government regulations. And liberals/socialists want more government regulations? Ugh.


What's needed are regulations that are fair and just, it's not a quantitative argument, but repubs want it to be, its a nice sound bite.
We want regs that assure everyone is on the same playing field, that strikes the right balance of the needs of the public with the needs of drivers, and currently, that is not the case.



> Stage coach drivers probably hated Henry Ford. Should the stage coach drivers have unionized and forced the stage coach companies to pay a certain rate? Of course not, it would have hastened the inevitable. Take a look at how the union nearly put GM and Hostess out of business. We almost couldn't eat Twinkies in a Caddy. Unions reduce a companies flexibility and ability to conform to a changing market.


That particular argument is works for whether or not we should stop SDCs, and that' not what is being debated here.

As long as vehicle-with-drivers are the mainstay, drivers should be paid enough to live, and enough to justify the expense of
their vehicles.

I would agree that a Union should not be allowed to stop SDCs, and you are using the fact that they would, as an argument against unions, but that is not the argument I'm making. I don't want anyone to overreach so far as to create an unjust environment.

but as long as vehicle-for-hires are mainstay, drivers should be paid enough to live, enough to pay for expenses and all vehicles for hire in a given region should play on the same playing field, and that is not the case today. That's the limit of my argument.



> A liberal/socialist's position is to force a higher rate to the drivers. Naturally, the TNC would have to raise the rate to the riders and alienating some riders. Fewer riders means fewer rides.


uber's increased ridership comes at the expense of bus and shuttle ridership, not just taxis. This is accomplished by lowering the rate close to that of buses and shuttles, such that the convenience of an Uber, being just a tad more than shuttles and busses, means Uber taking their riders.

That's the "free market", which would fine, but for one important detail.

Uber has achieved this by exploiting drivers. Exploitation is theft, plain and simple. If they were not allowed to exploit drivers, no where near as many riders from busses and shuttles would have switched and fewer for cabs because people can hail cabs, because for many, price is the decisive reason, not convenience. As for convenience, I was very busy at rates twice that of Uber driving a cab, so there ios a strong customer base for higher rates, for those who value convenience over price.



> ... If I'm willing to pay $5 an hour and someone is willing to work for $5 an hour, what right does anyone have to say we're both wrong?


Society has every right to force you to pay a minimum wage. At $5 an hour, a worker would have to seek government assistance, forcing taxpayers to sustain your worker when you should be. Foodstamps and assistance for workers that are not paid enough are de facto corporate welfare. In truth, a livable wage would result net savings to society.



> It may sound like I'm anti-union. I'm not. I'm an anti-force.


If a union could not compel those in a given industry to join, it would have no bargaining power.
That would undermine why the union would exist in the first place.

On other hand, I would be against a Union from exerting unreasonable demands on an employer. You're against unions, it seems, because they go too far. That may be true, and if it is, I'm against that, but the idea is sound, so one should not throw out the baby the bath water. Regs could go a long way to make sure everyone is being fair.

Again, justice is in the center of these extremes.



> I'm a member of a state wide coalition of independent contractors. {...see orig post ...)


Again, that's a separate argument. No one is arguing for anything that is not fair and just.



> The USA has the natural resources to build cars. ....{ see orig post }


There are still a quite a number of auto factories in the US, Japan has invested here for the same reason we have invested in Mexico.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Thanks for the personal attack. Those that attack the messenger often have a problem attacking the message. Case in point ...
> 
> Socialists want the government to control the economy.


Strawman. There are no socialists arguing here that I know of, or at least I'm not.



> Economists believe the market will control itself. They believe where the supply curve meets the demand curve is the equilibrium point. The equilibrium point is where we should strive to be. { ... see orig }


There is only one point the pendulum can rest, and that is dead center. Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs.

Suppy and demand works best for wants, but not so good for needs.

For example, the capitalist fire dept. Your house is on fire, so you go on yelp to find the best fire dept in your neighborhood, see whose got 5 stars and what people, especially girls who are talking about the hot looking firemen, you call them up to come and put out the fire that is burning down your house, and they say "credit card number, please! "

Need I explain what's wrong with this picture? Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs, for each do the thing they do best.

The pendulum rests only upon the center.



> A free market economist will not prevent street hails. Governments stop it. I don't care if one has a D or an R after their name. It doesn't matter. You think Republicans want free trade? Look at the 20% protectionist tariff our president instituted. That is not a free market. What does matter is the law they create. Don't blame the TNC for the law. Of the 535 members of the US congress, 1 has an advanced degree in economics. And socialists trust the government? This country was founded on a distrust of government, hence the 3 branches that check each other. That distrust should continue. They are out for themselves, not the public. Any government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take all you have.


In business world, the income disparity between the top and bottom is about 300 to 1, in government, about 7 to 1, where the 1 is about $15 per hour in gov, and much less in business. I keep hearing republicans complaining about high gov wages, but wait a minute, at the top, gov wages are far less than their corporate counterparts. Compare the Prez salary with the CEO of Exxon. When's the last time you sent a FOIA request to a corporation? How many casese of corporations raiding pension funds, etc? Enron, anyone?

An advanced degree in Economics is no assurance of wisdom. Both Keynes and Friedman had advanced degrees, but diametrically opposite on many policies. As to whom is the wiser, that depends on your philosophy. Economics is much more of an art than a science.

But, it works both ways. As a progesssive democrat, I am against tariffs and for free trade. I'm against price controls, Nixon tried them and they don't work. I'm for what is fair and just and what works and as to what that is, it is up to voters to decide, assuming the voting mechanism isn't rigged ( and it is, in many ways ).

I don't trust government that much, but I trust corporations much much less.

Ever do a FOIA request with a corporation? End of argument.



> How ethical is it to throw me and my employee in prison for doing something we both agree upon that is fair?
> 
> Tear down the walls to immigration and employment. Competition is good. I shouldn't have to pay 1 penny more than I have to, and I don't. Uber shouldn't pay 1 penny more than they have to. That's business.


Competition is good. Extremes are bad.

In China, they have sweat shops that pay workers $2 an hour, who must work 6 1/2 days per week, and a week is 12 hours, and in order to live, they live 8 to a room, sleeping in bunks, they are practically indentured servants.

If that is your idea of "business" god save us from such an evil philosophy. Regulations are needed.

There is no philosophy more crazy than libertarianism.



> If one wants to live in a commune, go ahead. Just don't force me to live there too.


Please, spare us the strawman argument, (red baiting) no one is making that argument.



> Voluntary actions by citizens is always preferable to a citizen being forced to an action. Remove the regulations that hinder competition. I don't think Uber could handle real competition. I fear our government may see Uber as too big to fail and bail them out. Our government has no authority to bail out businesses but does so anyway.


Like removing the regulation that forced a mining company not to dump it's toxic waste in local streams, which was recently repealed by Trump? ( I have a long list of similar repeals, under the misguided logic of "jobs" ).

Well, no business should be allowed to get to be too big to fail, because too big too fail means if it fails, it's a national security threat.
That's the problem. But, in a libertarian world, capital aggregates in fewer and fewer hands.

Regulation is needed, government is needed, and your confidence in private enterprise, left complete unchecked, left entirely to get away with what it can get away with, leads to oppression of the masses at the hands of a very few, Oligarchial fascism, which always results in some kind of bolshevik or similar revolution.

You swing the pendulum too far in one direction, it gains enough momentum to swing too far in the opposite direction, history prives this over and over again.



> Trust government? Increase the size and scope of the government? Give me a break - not higher taxes and more prisons.


No one is arguing trust, no one is arguing size, there are republican sound bites. Your mind is filled with thought-terminating clichés. If I believed half of what republicans say about democrats, I would a republican. It's not about taxes, it's about disposable income. If health insurance is $1000 a month, for a policy in which part of the price is the cost of the HMO to administer it, versus a $500 medicare-for-all tax that would accomplish the same thing, but where you are paying $1000 for the insurance, and another $500 for other general taxes, which of the two allow you more disposable income?

Don't argue "competition" Medicare-for-all does not remove competition, when I signed up, the vast majority of the clinics listed in the yellow pages were on the list for me to choose from, and they were private clinics with medicare customers as part of their customer base, many on the net with Yelp reviews. MFA is about "single payer" not "one state run hospital" and is an "option" not a "demand" that is the strawman they argue, and that is NOT what dems are offering.

See, republicans are penny wise and pound foolish. Health care in 48 developed nations that have socialized medicine, pay roughly half for the cost of care per capita than we do in America.



> How did the private sector of our economy handle the recent government shutdown? I'd say pretty good. If that was a 'shutdown', it should be permanent.
> 
> It would be nice if flipping burgers allowed one to raise a family, buy a new car, buy a new house, etc. The economic fact is it isn't. Its an entry level job best suited for someone with few other skills. If society says every job should pay at least middle class wages, the middle class becomes the poor class.


Jeez, my strawman meter is red lining.

No one is arguing a bottom rung job should pay a middle class wage. A livable wage is NOT a middle class wage. it's enough to rent an apartment, say a single, buy some clothes, take the buss, and be able to afford life's basic necessities, and maybe and a little left over. That's NOT middle class. At $5 an hour, you can afford to live in your car, and that's about it.

Right in harmony with your destruction of the government, Trump is gutting the state department, which has far reaching national security issues. We don't have ambassadors and envoys in many countries, including S Korea, we have no idea what is going on there, and many of the leaders of govs in those countries have expressed that when they need to contact us, they have no idea of whom to call.

Some gov jobs are very necessary, but you'll never know if you rely on an ideological view and don't dig deep into the reality of a given subject,


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> So, you would blame a dandelion for not being a sunflower?


The problem comes when the dandelion demands the same nutrients and sunlight that the sunflower requires. If one is attempting to farm sunflower seeds, the dandelion shouldn't be in the game.



Oscar Levant said:


> drivers should be paid enough to live, enough to pay for expenses and all vehicles for hire in a given region should play on the same playing field, and that is not the case today. That's the limit of my argument.


I agree 100%. My answer to the problem is simple - don't like the contract, don't accept the contract. But your argument doesn't end there. One of the proposed solutions is to organize drivers and attempt to influence the TNC. That is also acceptable to me. But it won't work. Another proposal is legislation. That is not acceptable to me. Removing the restrictions to competition instead of adding more restrictions is the better answer.



Oscar Levant said:


> As for convenience, I was very busy at rates twice that of Uber driving a cab, so there ios a strong customer base for higher rates, for those who value convenience over price.


You had twice the rates of Uber but there were 1/100 as many drivers. Its a much smaller slice of the pie now. But thanks to lower fares to riders, the pie is bigger. Raising the fares to the riders will make the pie smaller again. What happens to the vastly increased number of drivers fighting over the smaller pie? If the pie gets reduced to the size of pre-Uber days, the number of drivers would also have to be reduced to pre-Uber days and then the drivers would make what they did pre-Uber. It would have the same effect as banning rideshare. I say let rideshare fail or succeed on its own merits, not the whim of the legislators and the highly paid lobbyists they confer with.



Oscar Levant said:


> Society has every right to force you to pay a minimum wage. At $5 an hour, a worker would have to seek government assistance, forcing taxpayers to sustain your worker when you should be. Foodstamps and assistance for workers that are not paid enough are de facto corporate welfare. In truth, a livable wage would result net savings to society.


I believe I've addressed this before. The problem isn't with the wage, its with the welfare.

Everyone doesn't deserve a livable wage, especially business owners. What should a realtor be paid if they don't solicit listings and provide showings? What should the coffee shop owner be paid when their shop is in Death Valley and they only operate in the summer afternoon? What should we pay an Uber driver who sits in the middle of nowhere with terrible cell coverage? If a minimum gets mandated, sign me up again, I know a spot at Lake Mead ...

I don't trust the government. I don't trust corporations. Government will force me to do things. Corporations will entice me to do things. Force vs voluntary.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The problem comes when the dandelion demands the same nutrients and sunlight that the sunflower requires. If one is attempting to farm sunflower seeds, the dandelion shouldn't be in the game.


Socialism = to each according to need.
Capitalism = to each according to greed.

Wants work best with capitalism because greed begets abundance, and that's a good thing.
Needs work best with socialism because socialism focuses on need, where need is all important and all incompassing and Capitalism doesn't care.

both together make each stronger when the total absense of one or the other make each weeker. This is why a 100% libertarian society leads to fascism, and a 100% socialist society leads to totalitariansm.

Put the pendulum in the center, Socialism for needs, Capitalism for wants, and the pendulum rests, it because inert. Put it to one extreme, and it swing to the opposite direction wit such momentum it hits the other extreme.



> I agree 100%. My answer to the problem is simple - don't like the contract, don't accept the contract. But your argument doesn't end there. One of the proposed solutions is to organize drivers and attempt to influence the TNC. That is also acceptable to me. But it won't work. Another proposal is legislation. That is not acceptable to me. Removing the restrictions to competition instead of adding more restrictions is the better answer.


Some people, and, in fact, most people at the bottom rung of society, are unable to quit, they would starve. Maybe in time, but not right away. Sorry, it's a BS argument.

Remove all restrictions? What would you gain? Ability to take street hails? That's a privilege endowed by Cities and no city is going to do that unless you become a taxi, pay the fees, outfit the car as a cab, etc, whereas TNC us endowed by the state. What I think you want is to completely blur cabs and Ubers to become one thing. I doubt that will ever happen.



> You had twice the rates of Uber but there were 1/100 as many drivers. Its a much smaller slice of the pie now.
> 
> But thanks to lower fares to riders, the pie is bigger.


What do I care about how big the pie is? I'd rather have half of a smaller pizza that is 10x10, than 1/1o of a 20x20 pizza.



> Raising the fares to the riders will make the pie smaller again. What happens to the vastly increased number of drivers fighting over the smaller pie?


You get rid of moonlighters with a lease system, that's fine by me. I don't like moonlighters, and if I owned a company, I would not allow them. It means your biz is in chaos, unpredictable, needing surges to get drivers out on the road since you pay them so little to begin with, and now you gotta advertise on TV to beg people to work for you, as Uber does, sheesh, Uber runs it's operation backwards.
Yellow never had to advertise for drivers outside of a local paper. uber is all over the radio, and occasionally, on TV.

Before uber, Yellow didn't have "so many riders competing for cabs" they hired maybe a few per drivers per week, the turnover was about 25% per year ( or whatever the number, it was a lot less than Uber) , Uber's is 96% per year, so which is better? I don't care, really, all I car is about what Me, Myself, and I, put in the bank.

Another thing, when I went to get a job for Yellow, I had to appear in person, call first, make an appointment, fill out an application, go through a back ground check, pass a course with the sheriff to get my license which displayed my Taxi permit number on the dashboard, and the taxi authority telephone number which anyone could make note of, in case I treated them badly they had recourse. Compare this to how Uber operates? Any yahoo can work for Uber.

Now then, sure, taxi drivers in SD are a frustrated lot, but that's because the taxi companies killed the lease a cab/two drivers share the lease, system (where the cost of each lease was reasonable), to leasing one car per driver, 24/7 which forces drives to work 16 hours a day since one driver has to pay the entire lease , so they messed up there, too. They need to go back to the way it used to be, it was the best system.



> If the pie gets reduced to the size of pre-Uber days, the number of drivers would also have to be reduced to pre-Uber days and then the drivers would make what they did pre-Uber. It would have the same effect as banning rideshare. I say let rideshare fail or succeed on its own merits, not the whim of the legislators and the highly paid lobbyists they confer with.


Answered above.


> I believe I've addressed this before. The problem isn't with the wage, its with the welfare.
> 
> Everyone doesn't deserve a livable wage, especially business owners.


Workers yes, biz owners, no.

Workers do, because without a livable wage, they are forced to get gov assistance, foodstamps, and that's de facto corporate welfare. I'm against ALL corporate welfare (at taxpayer expense), direct and indirect ( such as paying less than a livable wage)

I see where you are going, and I'm going to stop you right there.

Rideshare drivers are NOT a business, because a business has upscale potential, freedom to charge rates, increase customers, etc, and a rideshare driver does not. Currently, a rideshare driver has all the burdens of a business, but none of the benefits, so with legislation, we can reverse this ( one way or the other, but it has to be one way or the other ).

As long as a driver does not, he or she should be protected under the rules for wages and employees, rideshare and similar gig economies, should be as a class similar to wage employees, with protections against exploitation, minimum wages/commissions, and so forth.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I believe the vast majority of Americans have socialists ideas,


Nonsense, most people know very little about the subject, other than they heard about USSR falling, and now it's something else. As to what it is now, I doubt even Putin can tell you. I do, believe, however, Putin longs reunify all of the satellite countries they lost when Gorbachev and Russia went through "Perestroika" and "Glasnost". What remains is anybody's guess.



> especially if they receive the benefits.


Oh, please....



> On the other hand, if you phrase the question as, "Do you believe you should pay your neighbor so they can stay home and play video games instead of working?" might get a different result. The popularity of an idea doesn't necessarily make the idea good or bad, just popular. It was popular to think the earth was flat. Some still do.


You toss these terms about like a cartoon character

So, you want to get the public's opinion of socialism by framing a question as:
"...pay your neighbor so they can stay home and play video games instead of working?"

All you would do is find out what people think of your opinion of socialism is, for your bias permiates the question.

The result would not yield anything of value to a scholar in search of information about public's opinion of socialism.

Socialism is defined as "the state owning all or most of the means of production
and distribution", so if you want to ask your average American of their opinion, you should ask them their opinion
as it is defined, and not filter the question through your personal baggage.

If you tried to bias the result by referring to USSR, etc, all that would do is yield opinions about the USSR. Socialists
would argue the country was a sorry excuse for socialism, just as many argue America is a sorry excuse for Democracy.

If you wanted to find out valid public opinion about what they think of democracy, but instead of questioning them about
democracy as it is defined, you ask them what they think about America, you'll not get information useful to scholarly pursuit insofar as public opinion of democracy.

And why do you express such things? What is the point? Okay, we get it, you're a right winger (or something of that spectrum, libertarian/neocon/neolib/conservative, or a libertarian leaning independent, etc, flavor, regurgitating the many items I've
seen, read, heard, in the your typical conservative bucket of thought terminating clichés, since I started studying these things 40 years ago. And, by the way, I am NOT a socialist. If you were to talk to a bona fide socialist, he or she would exclaim that I am a capitalist, and that's only a half truth.



> Uber may or not be unethical, it a matter of opinion. Does a business have to go above and beyond the terms of a contract to prove to be ethical? If I thought a business was unethical, I'd take my business elsewhere.


This is a specious argument, you are equating running a business with driving for Uber. Driving for Uber is not "operating a business".

It is in the _de jure _sense, but not in the _de facto _sense.



> Where would Uber be without drivers? Where would drivers be without Uber? Who has the leverage?
> 
> I'd take Rand over Marx any day. But I only know Rand's fiction. I know what Marxism leads to. I know that the Nobel prize winner in economics in 1976 was an authority on economics and his ideas are just as valid today. Since I officially became an economics student in 1978, I might be biased but don't think so. Friedman writes: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."


Oh, you are biased, no question on that count.

I would take exception with Friedman on that point. That idea gives rise to the oft told maxim that a "corporation has a fiduciary responsibility, first, to make as much profits for stockholders as possible".

Whatever a corporation's responsibility is, it could be legislated, it's really a matter for voters, who vote for politicians to implement stated ideals, to decide. it could be anything, really. But the "corporation has first duty to create as much profit as possible for stockholders" as led to some very myopic decisions by many companies. The problem is that it causes many ot think too much for short term gains, and not long term strategies where profits might be sacrificed in the short term. Auto companies were playing checkers, while Japan auto makers were playing chess. Compare how Japan auto companies built cars to last, it took them five years to develop a car, though they didn't make as much profit per car, where American auto makers took three years, and the cars weren't built to last, but more profit per car, (big cars in the face of rising gas prices wasn't too smart, either ) that was the one big reason the automakers needed bailing out, (ultimately, it was a "too big to fail" reason ) so Japan kicked out butts. The Auto makers learned their lesson, at least with certain models. I think Obama did the right thing to bail them out, it preserved their jobs, and they recovered and paid back the loan or most of it.

I would recommended, as a social policy, for the greater good, to have a law that states that a "corporations first responsibility is to preserve, as much as possible, American jobs". The second priority would be as he described. Now, that might seem like an unnecessary burden on a corporation, but if it applied to all American corporations, as long as everyone is on the same playing field, I think it should be implemented. Now, I don't believe it can work as a dictate, or a mandate, but it could work as a priority. There will be circumstances where it will not be possible, in order to preserve other jobs, but as long as the spirit of it is demonstrated, I think that's what should be the law of the land. I'll give you an example.

Say the exportation of a department and say 500 jobs, only yeilded a marginal benefit to the stockholders, and the exportation wasn't necessary to preserve those jobs and other jobs in the business, or the profitability overall. Then, the law would kick in. But, if being denied the opportunity to export these jobs, would lead to the company folding completely, or drastically, resulting in more jobs lost than if a portion of the company's jobs were exported, then the exportation should be allowed. see, it's a priority, not a mandate. I think if that policy was adopted by the auto industry, they would have made decisions as Japan did, taking longer, and more care, to develop a car.

I did a book report on his "Free To Choose" book in 1981 in my economics class. I got an A on it, and my professor was a staunch democrat, and I was a libertarian at the time. My political philosophy, after much soul searching, study, over a period of years, has evolved. My views now are much closer to the Green party than DNC, but since there are only two parties with a significant caucus, I'm a democrat.

Did you know that Friedman advocated a negative income tax for people that earned below the poverty level? No Tea or Neocon would go for such a thing today. I think it's a good idea, simpler than welfare, and it doesn't dictate how the money should be spent, which confirms to free marketers. I've got no problem with that, just as long as everyone has the minimum amount to live on, which a number, say 130% of the poverty level or something like that.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

We have several areas of agreement but a few other areas that I'm obviously right about. 

I'm not a member of any political party. None mirror my views. The only president I voted for was a peanut farmer who got trounced by a second rate Hollywood actor.

If we need a new flu vaccine developed immediately to save thousands of lives, allowing the financial incentive for the potential payoff would spur development. If there is no reward, few would risk the time for the research. Under the current system, curing cancer could make one a billionaire. Capping the profit reduces the incentive. 

There has always been a gray area concerning independent contractors and employees. Prior to TNC's, the only one that cared what you called yourself was the IRS. From the IRS, "The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done." I believe its purposefully vague to allow interpretation.

Some like the security of being an employee. Some like the flexibility of being an independent contractor. I don't like to be told where, when, how, and for how long to work. Others wouldn't mind and could reap additional rewards. It would be a nightmare for Uber to manage that many employees. I have my doubts they would even attempt it.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> We have several areas of agreement but a few other areas that I'm obviously right about.
> 
> I'm not a member of any political party. None mirror my views. The only president I voted for was a peanut farmer who got trounced by a second rate Hollywood actor.


Given the opinions you have expressed on this forum, you sound like you would have voted for Gary Johnson, or one of the libertarian leaning candidates in 2016, If you once voted for Jimmy Carter (I believe he was a centrist), but would not today, your views have shifted, and that would make you a neoliberal ( neoliberalism has nothing to do with liberalism, its usually dems who are now for free markets being the best solution to just about everything , Reagan is a perfect example of a neoliberal. Many of the Tea Partiers or the freedom caucus are neolibs. But, they don't call themselves that, it's liberals and progressives that call them that. They call themselves conservatives, but what they preach is not the the brand of conservativism espoused by the granddaddy of the movement, William F Buckley ).



> If we need a new flu vaccine developed immediately to save thousands of lives, allowing the financial incentive for the potential payoff would spur development. If there is no reward, few would risk the time for the research. Under the current system, curing cancer could make one a billionaire. Capping the profit reduces the incentive.


 Although I"m for universal health care, and I believe the profit motive should be removed , there are boutique elements to health care, such as cosmetic surgery, etc., that I would put in the "wants" category, best served by capitalism. Most of healthcare, I would put in the needs category, best served by a more social policy.

Now then, there are some diseases that are rare, and vaccines for those are not being given priority, for the very reason they are not profitable. I believe those that are not should be the province of UHC development protocols and procedures ( once established ).

The flu vax targets millions, and is one of the most profitable vaccines made, I think it's made by Merck, but I don't know. However, it's one of the least effective vaccines made. For my age, and under 2, it's not effective at all. So i don't bother with it.



> There has always been a gray area concerning independent contractors and employees. Prior to TNC's, the only one that cared what you called yourself was the IRS. From the IRS, "The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done." I believe its purposefully vague to allow interpretation.
> 
> Some like the security of being an employee. Some like the flexibility of being an independent contractor. I don't like to be told where, when, how, and for how long to work. Others wouldn't mind and could reap additional rewards. It would be a nightmare for Uber to manage that many employees. I have my doubts they would even attempt it.


I believe TNC riders should be put in a special class, where the rules of wage employees, the safeguards, are applied, that doesn't mean Uber would have to restrict them more than they are doing currently.


----------



## Ant-Man (Nov 22, 2017)

Nats121 said:


> It appears Ayn Rand is your guru.


Travis Shrugged?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> Socialism = to each according to need.
> Capitalism = to each according to greed.
> 
> Wants work best with capitalism because greed begets abundance, and that's a good thing.
> ...


100% libertarianism would be a sort of anarchy, as opposed to fascism, which is a govt/corporate partnership.

One the worst things our govt can do is deny equal opportunity to all Americans and/or play favorites.

And taxi medallions/permits deny equal opportunity and play favorites.

If a person has a safe, insured, inspected vehicle, they should be able to operate a taxi, period. Besides a safe vehicle, the only regulation for taxis should be against defrauding passengers. The free market can take care of the rest.

It's long overdue for the govt to enforce the laws pertaining to independent contractor status.

It's become an epidemic in this country (and apparently in Europe) for scofflaw companies to declare their employees as ICs.

It's truly laughable for rideshare drivers to be called business owners, let alone ICs.

Uber drivers are poorly paid employees.


----------



## BlackTruth (Dec 17, 2017)

Repeat after me 30x:
we don't need a union...
we don't need a union...
we don't need a union...

what do drivers need?
we simply need to come together on our own without paying anyone dues. We need a platform where we can independently talk to each other so when we agree to turn off the app in NYC, guess what, the app would feel our presence. But that is not the case. Every man for self until the end.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Every single friend I have involved in having his/her own business employing people, hates unions, I often wonder why.


----------



## makes_sense (Sep 26, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> The value of unions can be debated, but your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> A worker who's mistreated by their employer is being exploited. The fact that no one is forcing that worker to stay at their job doesn't change that fact.
> 
> ...


They own stock in the company or are helping sell it lol



BlackTruth said:


> Repeat after me 30x:
> we don't need a union...
> we don't need a union...
> we don't need a union...
> ...


Like it or not thats called unity my friend


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Lunger said:


> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


Really? Then how come I got 23 likes just yesterday, not counting the thousands of likes I've received since 2014?

Sorry to disappoint.



Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Every single friend I have involved in having his/her own business employing people, hates unions, I often wonder why.


Because they have to pay people a decent wage, and they don't want to, and jeez, that's annoying?

If they would pay people a just wage in the first place, unions couldn't justify their existence.
It's like this, no company can be forced to sign a union contract UNLESS their workers vote for it.

If they don't want their workers to vote for it, then treat them better.

Simple, really.

I had a wedding photography business, and I paid my second shooter $300 for 8 hours work. I had to accept less of the pie to do it, but I had enough left. I put the job on Craigslist offering $150, and got 50 applicants. This proved that I didn't have to pay my second shooter that much, but I thought it was just pay given the skill involved. At $300 for 8 hours work, I doubt any Union would have a chance in my shop. Many companies pay as little as they can get away with, but the shops that want to avoid unions, they pay what the job is worth, not how little they can get away with. Now, a libertarian will argue that what the job is worth is what people will accept. Technically yes, but humanity sometimes is more than a mere technicality.

See, there are two philosophies here, one is born out of a kind of economic Darwinism, the other out of the spirit of goodwill and being fair to the working man.

Which do you think voters will side with on the mid terms?


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> 100% libertarianism would be a sort of anarchy, as opposed to fascism, which is a govt/corporate partnership.


100% libertarianism is anarchy. Power centers would aggregate, more and more capital would flow to fewer and fewer hands, and where this ultimately leads is fascism, because anarchy is low hanging fruit for fascists who desire total control.



> One the worst things our govt can do is deny equal opportunity to all Americans and/or play favorites.
> 
> And taxi medallions/permits deny equal opportunity and play favorites.


Yes and no.

Whatever the system, a city has a right to regulate the taxi industry, because an unregulated taxi industry is chaos for operators, and ultimately is worse than regulation. Now then, do they over regulate? Many do, and that's not good either.

The principle of a regulated taxi industry to stabilize the market is sound, but like anything in the world, it can be abused.



> If a person has a safe, insured, inspected vehicle, they should be able to operate a taxi, period. Besides a safe vehicle, the only regulation for taxis should be against defrauding passengers. The free market can take care of the rest.


The taxi business is unique. in other business, the extremes amount of capital required is a
self-limiting preventing the oversupply of a particular business, and given the extremes amount of capital required, business people take special care to discover whether or not their investment
is a safe bet, or not, these factors do not exist for taxi operators, because without regulation, given that most people own a car, and so, without regulation, the self-limiting aspects
of most businesses are not true for the taxi business, which gives rise to the need to limit
the number of cabs. Without regulation in the taxi business, there is chaos. History has demonstrated this.

that doesn't mean I advocate limiting them so much the needs of the public are not met, which
happens, as well.

A regulator is needed to strike the right balance of operators needs to earn a living versus
the public's need for transportation.

the idea is sound, but like anything in this world, it can be abused, and is in many cities.
But, going the other extreme, taxi anarchy, as a "solution" is much worse.



> It's long overdue for the govt to enforce the laws pertaining to independent contractor status.
> 
> It's become an epidemic in this country (and apparently in Europe) for scofflaw companies to declare their employees as ICs.
> 
> ...


Agreement here.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

JerseyJay said:


> Lunger bring me to my next point, don't smoke crack and watch FOX all day.


The rambling paragraphs are straight up *meth* addict tendencies.

If you are an employee, unions{in general} are good for you.

If you are of the capital class, down with the unions. Free market > All. Ignoring the fact that the only true free markets on Earth are in Somalia.


----------



## Chefbumbum (Nov 16, 2017)

Lunger said:


> How are you being 'exploited'? No one is forcing you to work for Uber. You want to be some ****** in a union? Then join the Teamsters and send your money to the Mob.
> 
> No one wants your poison here. &%[email protected]!* off!


ALARM.... Uber shill....


----------



## UbingInLA (Jun 24, 2015)

_We don't need a union, we'll be just fine._










_edit: YES WE DO!!!!!_


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

BlackTruth said:


> Repeat after me 30x:
> we don't need a union...
> we don't need a union...
> we don't need a union...
> ...


You can't legally do that without a union. Be warned. Any talk of it will get you deactivated if they find out who you are. The only legal recourse for striking is via unionizing. That's how the law works,
( caveat IANARL, I just play one on UP  )

Even if you could, without a union, most will not will not cooperate. A few might, but unless the entire field cooperates, it will have little effect anyway.

IMNSHO.



dirtylee said:


> Ignoring the fact that the only true free markets on Earth are in Somalia.


Bingo, and try starting a swimming pool sales business in frickin' Somalia.

(For the analogy challenged, the idea of that statement is that anarchy has a tough time supplying infrastructure whereby you can be an entrepreneur ).


----------



## UbingInLA (Jun 24, 2015)

*Uber is just one giant Pro Union advertisement.
*
It's vault of lawsuits, the way it treats it's workforce, it's total disrespect for any kind of ethics & regulations.... all of it. I was never pro, or anti union. I never really appreciated the need, or the importance of Unions. Driving for Uber has cleared this up for me.
_*
I'm sure there are companies that are capable of treating their employees (or workforce) fairly and with respect - Uber is NOT one of them.
*_
edit: paging tohunt4me


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

makes_sense said:


> Ride-hailing apps are surging in popularity, but the legal status of drivers who earn a living from them remains unresolved. Companies like Uber and Lyft contend that, because drivers are independent contractors and not employees under the U.S.'s various labor and employment laws, any attempt to form unions or bargain collectively for higher wages violates antitrust laws.
> 
> Until now, that assumption has been widely shared - but it's based on a failure to understand why concerted activity by workers is protected against antitrust liability. Labor's antitrust shield was established by the 1914 Clayton Act, in which Congress determined that "the labor of a human being is not an article in commerce." A two-year-old Seattle ordinance, now in federal litigation, provides an opportunity for courts to extend these century-old labor rights to workers in the digital economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U (Apr 2, 2017)

I need to send FUber an invoice for training mindless monkeys to become dependent upon their App. Imagine what the value of the driver facilitating App addiction is really worth?


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> The value of unions can be debated, but your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> A worker who's mistreated by their employer is being exploited. The fact that no one is forcing that worker to stay at their job doesn't change that fact.
> 
> ...


It's irrelevant whether they should or should not quit, exploiting workers is wrong, period.

The word "exploitation" would not even exist as a concept of workers could easily quit.

The singular material fact upon which policy should be based should be not on blaming victims, but on going after perpitrators.

Yes, if someone is being victimized, they could and should do things to help them avoid such situations, but that doesn't change the fact that exploitation is wrong, it's irrelevant.

The kind of logic you are using would blame a girl for dressing sexy for being raped.

That's a sorry philosophy, really. You should, some day, rethink your position on this

Besides, no one is saying that Uber is forcing anyone to work for them, but thanks for the strawman.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> It's irrelevant whether they should or should not quit, exploiting workers is wrong, period.
> 
> The word "exploitation" would not even exist as a concept of workers could easily quit.
> 
> ...


Exploitation has several definitions, even in this context. I view it as the forced extraction of surplus value from labor (taxes).  Others may view it as taking unfair advantage of other's vulnerabilities. The latter, more broad definition would indicate capitalism is rife with exploitation.

A business owner would attempt to pay as low a wage as possible and get as much production as possible out of their labor force. If there was only one business, a monopoly, this would be an issue. Monopolies are created by regulations that restrict competition. Free markets do not have monopolies, there are multiple businesses per industry. That is competition. If McDonalds only offered $1 an hour, Burger King would offer $1.25 an hour for qualified workers. Eventually, the price of labor would stabilize at a point where McDonalds and Burger King offered the same wage for the same job and conditions. Capitalism forces business to pay their labor close to what they produce. If regulations force the point higher than what the labor can produce, the businesses will pursue alternatives to labor. Then everyone loses, the business have to develop the alternatives, the employees get laid off, the tax collector gets less, and the economy suffers.

Imagine being at an auction and you value an item at $1. You bid $0.50. Someone else also values the item at $1. They bid $0.60. No one who values it at $1 will bid higher than $1. That is competition. That is capitalism. The bidders don't want to pay more, they have to pay more. If you force them to pay $1.25, no one will bid. The bidders will look for alternatives and the item collects dust.

As long as a transaction is voluntary, it is considered mutually beneficial. Both parties expect to gain more than they give up. If one believes they can get a better deal somewhere else, they can say no to the transaction. Mutually beneficial transactions are how wealth is created.

It may seem that a worker is more vulnerable than a business. Maybe. A worker is definitely more vulnerable than government. Government works by force, not voluntarism. Governments often exploit that vulnerability for their own goals. The economically powerful and politically connected have more influence on government than the typical worker who cannot make large political donations and hire lobbyists. This influence helps businesses with favorable regulations. Big business help big government. Big government helps big business. That is our political system. Free market transactions are voluntary. Government transactions are forced. Big government transactions are favorably biased toward big businesses at a cost to the taxpayer. If ending exploitation is the goal, a voluntary system is much preferable over a system of force that benefits big businesses the most at a cost to the worker.

Uber can't force anyone to do anything. Big government can force you to do just about anything. Uber gives me options. Government gives me fear.
Until Uber commits fraud, theft, or forces me to do anything, I don't have an issue with them. I, and millions of others, will enjoy cheap rides. The alternative could be for driver's cars to collect dust.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Exploitation has several definitions, even in this context. I view it as the forced extraction of surplus value from labor (taxes). Others may view it as taking unfair advantage of other's vulnerabilities. The latter, more broad definition would indicate capitalism is rife with exploitation.
> 
> A business owner would attempt to pay as low a wage as possible and get as much production as possible out of their labor force. If there was only one business, a monopoly, this would be an issue. Monopolies are created by regulations that restrict competition. Free markets do not have monopolies, there are multiple businesses per industry. That is competition. If McDonalds only offered $1 an hour, Burger King would offer $1.25 an hour for qualified workers. Eventually, the price of labor would stabilize at a point where McDonalds and Burger King offered the same wage for the same job and conditions. Capitalism forces business to pay their labor close to what they produce. If regulations force the point higher than what the labor can produce, the businesses will pursue alternatives to labor. Then everyone loses, the business have to develop the alternatives, the employees get laid off, the tax collector gets less, and the economy suffers.
> 
> ...


After all that nice post well-thought-out but I can't find anything in it that refutes the premise I raised. Much depends on your philosophy and My Philosophy is such that I believe all businesses should pay all workers enough to live and that would vary from one region to another.

Uber drivers are technically businesses, I believe they should create a special class where they have the protections that wage earners enjoy because theough we're technically businesses we have none of the upscale potential of businesses and all the burdens of businesses so any analogy you would apply to the business world I believe is not applicable to the ride shares.

And I'm going to take a closer look at your post and go through it when I get home tonight I'm on the road right now and this is an abbreviated response


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Until Uber commits fraud, theft, or forces me to do anything, I don't have an issue with them.


When i drive about 10 hours, I'll gross about $135. $25 will be gas, leaving me with $110 for 10 hours work.

I will typically drive over 200 miles. The accelerated depreciation will gobble up a lot of that profit, given enough time,
if I continue to drive. in the short term, the cost is more abstract, it's in the collective, but as time progresses, the cost
is felt a lot more. I got my car last february with 33K miles, it now has 110K miles, and ended my warrantee at 100K.

With normal driving, that warrantee would have lasted probably some 5 years, but Uber has shortened to less than a year, 
and so Uber has taken that away from me without compensation. I have no other source of income, so Uber is the only way
I can make money right now, and I have been searching for other work. I consider that exploitation, Uber ios taking advantage
of my situation because I have not much choice.

Uber is getting a free fleet, and the only reason it does is because drivers need money, and they accept a low rate, they don't understand the real costs, over time, and are not factoring it in. Uber takes advantage of this.

I support legislation to force Uber to give drivers a mileage allowance, just as many companies do who require their workers to use their vehicles in conjunction with work. I could lease my car for $40 a day, and so, I feel I should get that amount. Uber is getting a free lease, and that is wrong, in my view. Just because drivers are willing to give a free lease, doesn't mean it's right that Uber doesn't compensate drivers for use of the vehicles.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Employees have a guaranteed wage or salary, even if there is no work to be done. Business owners (independent contractors) have no guarantees. In fact, business owners can and do lose money while doing business. Employees have a boss that monitors there work. Business owners have an immediate incentive to increase their productivity. Employees often enjoy a paid lunch hour. Business owners may gulp down a sandwich while trying to stay productive. Employees may get a raise after a set amount of time. Business owners may get a raise at any time if they operate more efficiently. Employees often have to punch a time clock. Business owners just get the job done. Running a business is not for everyone, especially a business with very low expected returns. If there is a 7-11 on every corner, each 7-11 owner shouldn't expect a high income. A 7-11 clerk knows what they will make. Business owners take a risk. Employees take a job. Generally speaking, the higher the risk, the higher the reward. No risk, little reward.

Due to our over reaching federal government, drivers acting as independent contractors do get reimbursed for mileage by the way of a tax deduction. An employee may or may not get reimbursed for mileage from their employer, it depends on the job and the employee and employer's negotiating skills.

Want to be an Uber employee-driver? Expect $0.55 per mile and $0.12 per minute. No surges. Mandatory start and stop times. Mandatory area to service. Dead miles to drive to your service area are not paid or reimbursed, its a commute. Mandatory dress code. Mandatory greeting of rider. Mandatory acceptance of riders. Mandatory company meetings. The TNC's would hire just enough to cover demand, everyone else gets laid off. Some might get 40 hour work weeks (no overtime) while others may get 4 hours per month. Ever notice how a UPS driver hustles while a USPS driver shuffles? Incentives work.

Uber is getting a fleet of cars provided by independent contractors, smart move by Uber. Its not free to Uber. The driver's cut is a high cost to them. The cost is so high that they are aggressively pursuing driverless cars. Increase their labor costs and that pursuit will intensify.

There are posts on this forum of California drivers netting over $130,000 per year. While I question their math, it does show some think its a good gig. My net adjusted income hasn't broke $10k for the past 5 years or so. I can't afford to eat at McDonalds. I have lots of free time, I put in 40 hours a week at video games. I have an economy, newish, 4 door car. I enjoy driving around. I enjoy meeting new people. I could become homeless in a very short period of time. To me, driving for Uber in Las Vegas is a bad deal for the drivers and I refuse to do it unless the rates at least double. I don't want government to tell a private business how to run their business. Let the business fail or succeed on their own merit. Let the business owners make the choices they deem most profitable. Government is the biggest exploiter. Asking government into your business is inviting trouble.


----------

