[sighsigh]

Can HackerNews please stop sympathizing with nationalist unions? The perpetual civil war that was the 20th century ended quite some time ago. You can stop fighting those battles now. The losers of that fight have been preordained and now everything just has to play out How do I know this? Simple.

When automated cars happen, services like Uber win and antique systems of unions will run to pedantic legal protectionism. When did HackerNews become the hub of pro-nationalist union propaganda anyways?

[readme]

"Can HackerNews please stop sympathizing with nationalist unions?"

Nationalist? There's nothing nationalistic about taxi driver unions. In my experience taxi drivers are usually foreign.

Not to mention that you've attributed all of hacker news to one hive mind that should agree with whatever you think. I would imagine most people here are rather insulted by that notion

You've also presented no real facts or arguments for why Stallman's article is pro-union propaganda. On the other hand, he's presented many compelling arguments for why Uber is an invasion of privacy when compared to a normal taxi service.

I agree unions are not helpful: what we should really have is a sound set of labor laws that oblige companies to treat workers fairly instead of leaving them to bargain for it.

[sighsigh]

So taxi drivers are going back to their native countries at the end of every shift?

Unions, especially service unions revolving around local physical transportation, depend entirely on nationalism. Without a sympathetic federal entity that can supersede local definitions of what work is, you're just a ragtag pack of misfits.

And owning a cellphone in general is an invasion of privacy. To single out Uber and ignore the NSA entirely is the hallmark of a hit piece's attempt at deflection.

You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people. Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor. Cubans get paid $30 a week while the arbiter mechanism takes the rest.

I think the problem is HackerNews is full of people who grew up in free market capitalism and are now fantasizing about what life would be like under mythical unicorn unionism. It's like some kind of forbidden fruit around here.

[samman]

>Unions, especially service unions revolving around local physical transportation, depend entirely on nationalism. Without a sympathetic federal entity that can supersede local definitions of what work is, you're just a ragtag pack of misfits.

I'm not so sure that's the case ultimately. If all of Uber's drivers banded together and simply decided not to drive until their terms were met, they'd likely have a good deal of leverage over Uber without any government intervention required. That is the basic concept of unions. Of course, companies have historically tried to circumvent or supress unionized labor in the past, to varying degrees of success.

[sighsigh]

> If all of Uber's drivers banded together and simply decided not to drive until their terms were met, they'd likely have a good deal of leverage over Uber without any government intervention required

I have experience with unions and I can tell you that if every Uber driver on earth were to protest right here, right now.. and all you will be doing is creating job openings for other people who will happily get paid less to get the job done.

Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.

Comments like this are just more proof of HackerNew's magical thinking regarding unions.

[jljljl]

>> I have experience with unions and I can tell you that if every Uber driver on earth were to protest right here, right now.. and all you will be doing is creating job openings for other people who will happily get paid less to get the job done.

It depends on how many within the pool of potential Uber drivers join the union, and consequently how great the impact on supply is. If the majority of current Uber drivers agree to representation by a union, I'm not sure they will be so easily replaceable.

>> Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.

User's brand and pricing relies on skilled drivers, since the driver has to be efficient, knowledgable, and courteous enough to warrant high ratings (Uber drops drivers with low ratings). It also requires drivers who have access to a vehicle that meets Uber's standards.

I'm not sure the job is as low skill as you characterize.

[sighsigh]

It's low enough that robots will do it in 5 years. No amount of down votes is going to stop that. Lol @ hacker news burying this obvious technical advancement in the name of mythical unicorn unionism.

[jljljl]

>>> You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people.

Are you sure that wage agreements between a corporate entity like Uber and individual drivers can really be described as "negotiations between two people"? Are you sure that individual drivers are more likely to see their interests represented when they negotiate as individuals vs. when they negotiate as a collective?

>>> Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor.

I'm not sure this really aligns with the history of labor unions, at least not in the US. The "already powerful" as you describe them have often gone to great links to suppress unionization.

[sighsigh]

So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?

And if you think mythical unicorn unison is the anti-corporate underdog, you should really come live in a highly pro-union state sometime outside of the SanFran bubble and watch your job opportunities vanish to seniority and petty local politics.

[jljljl]

>> So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?

No and probably not, which is why your assertion that "negotiations should be between two people" doesn't really apply in this scenario

[sighsigh]

I never said negotiations SHOULD be between two people. I said that they are.

Tell me, when is the last time you engaged in a negotiation with more than one person at the same time? And if you did, why are you intentionally crushing your odds like that? Have you ever conducted a negotiation in your life?