[tech_ken]

> Insisting they know better for someone else

Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.

Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.

[anthonypasq]

I have no issues with people unionizing, I think they should use their free association power as they see fit. What I take issue with is the "exploitation" framing. Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.

A union using their power to increase workers wages is not "reducing exploitation" they are using their bargaining power just as selfishly as corporations do.

When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening, its two parties negotiating and coming to an agreement.

[tech_ken]

> When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening

So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?

> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.

Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.

[anthonypasq]

yes, that is why price gouging and monopolies are illegal and employment agreements are not.

so again, unless you think all trade is exploitative, im not understanding your argument. Selling labor for money is the exact same transaction as walking into Walmart and buying a banana.

[tech_ken]

> Selling labor for money is the exact same transaction as walking into Walmart and buying a banana.

In the same comment you say that the government has to help guarantee that Walmart won't exploit you in this banana purchase transaction by outlawing price gouging and monopolization. If labor is the same type of transaction, it stands to reason that certain types of employment can be exploitative, despite the 'voluntary nature' of the transaction. Is your issue with the 'Uber exploits their contractors' framing simply based in the fact that Uber has not broken any labor laws?

Since you're having trouble following me I'll give a quick summary here. You initially said:

> if all these drivers are getting horribly exploited why are they doing it?

My point is simply that this is crap reasoning: people voluntarily participate in exploitative interactions all the time if they lack genuine alternatives.

[cute_boi]

> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.

How can you say this with straight face?

[anthonypasq]

because they can quit at any time? unless you have a different definition of the word voluntarily than i do.

[philipallstar]

Because it's true. Please provide a valuable comment that isn't just insinuation.