|
|
|
|
|
|
by synicalx
3446 days ago
|
|
|
First, you're evaluating both against the same criteria - that's comparing. Second, Uber is exactly like freelancing in a lot of ways - you get paid per job, you aren't entitled to paid leave, and running costs are your problem. Regardless of what you assume Uber aspires to be, the fact is there a whole range of ride sharing options out there so people can absolutely shop around. Third - Blaming the victim requires a victim, for a victim to exist there also needs to be an offender. In your mind Uber is the offender because they are somehow the "more powerful party", which only really makes sense in a small number of cases. Uber is reliant on people signing on to drive for them, and unless said drivers are somehow indebted to Uber or contractually obligated to drive for them I fail to see how Uber has much power over them. Happy to change my mind on this if you can show me a situation in which Uber has some sort of excessive control over one or more of their drivers. Uber "actively promote" car leasing in a small number of locations as an alternative to supplying your own car, and even then it's not the main message of their driver-focused advertising. At no point in signing up to be a driver will you be instructed to lease a car. Once again, people have all the numbers available and it's up to them to work out if it's financially viable for them to lease a car from Uber or from anyone else. |
|
|
2) That is not "exactly like freelancing". It is more akin to the company town approach to things, where the nominal structure of freedom is used to wash away moral responsibility. And if you talk to ex-Uber drivers, they do not feel there is a "whole range of options". Uber claims 87% market share, making them by far the dominant company. And the notion that Uber aspires to be a monopsony is not my assumption; investment analysts looking at Uber are pretty clear that Uber's market valuation only makes sense if they end up totally dominating things. Really, I freelanced for years, and two of my parents did as well. Trying to tell me that Uber is particularly like freelancing is pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
3) Uber is clearly the more powerful party in both the contract law sense [1] and in the market sense. There's no "somehow" here. They are the ones who write the contract. They are the ones who set the terms. They are the one who can unilaterally change the terms. They are the more powerful party. So get out of here with your "somehow".
4) And as to the leasing thing, I begin to be concerned that you're not arguing in good faith here. Uber literally helps people lease cars full time, so I think it's reasonable for people to read that as Uber suggesting that full time is reasonable. You after all brought up leasing.
More broadly, you're making the sort of tendentious, over-narrow arguments that were used to justify all sorts of exploitative behavior before labor laws required people to be either employees (therefore deserving of protection) or true independent contractors (who are professionals and can deal with things on their own because they operate in a functional marketplace with multiple clients). The last couple decades have seen businesses creeping around those barriers because it lets them take advantage of power asymmetries. I think Uber used a weak economy and a technological change to further undermine those barriers.
If you want to make a serious argument here, you can't just sweep Uber's enormous advantages under the rug. There are giant asymmetries in information, legal resources, negotiation skill, market power, financial resources, manipulative skill, and political clout. If you'd like to make a might-makes-right, fuck-the-workers case, just go for it. But if you're going to continue to make an argument about fairness, you have to account for power. Otherwise you're just ignoring a century of labor and employment law history.
[1] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability for how power is relevant to contract law.