[HN Gopher] Uber recognises a union for the first time
___________________________________________________________________
Uber recognises a union for the first time
Author : shivbhatt
Score : 150 points
Date : 2021-05-27 09:14 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| The beginning of the end for Uber. Never recognize a union,
| they're like herpes, you can't get rid of them.
| londons_explore wrote:
| This is Uber playing off one union against another...
|
| The GMB (originally General, Municipal and Boilermakers) Union vs
| the App Drivers and Couriers union (who is fighting Uber in
| court).
|
| This is effectively Uber helping the GMB union expand their turf,
| killing the App drivers and Couriers union. I assume in return,
| the GMB union has promised to be toothless.
| pydry wrote:
| GMB's raison d'etre is to be as milquetoast as possible. It's
| why they threw their weight behind Owen Smith (now a PR flack
| for a pharmaceutical) in the Labour leadership election.
|
| It's the union I'd choose if I were Uber.
| urschrei wrote:
| The deal explicitly states that the company doesn't have to
| engage in collective bargaining about wages, so this seems like
| little more than PR at this stage, unless there's a broader
| strategy.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Do you think the only purpose of a union is wages?
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Its recognition for representation its a first step
| paxys wrote:
| That isn't the only reason to have a union.
| ivvve wrote:
| Whilst this is good on paper, this is actually pretty bad, and
| GMB should be treated with more scrutiny. This seems to be
| working better for the employer and the union than the workers.
|
| The fact is that Uber workers who are members of the App Drivers
| and Couriers Union, one of the smaller UK unions, got recognition
| in the UK Supreme court that drivers are employees. They brought
| an effective legal challenge against Uber that made the firm
| recognise contractors (in name only) as employees. This was a
| landmark win that made a real difference in the worker's lives.
| Clearly Uber was under threat, since this effective challenge by
| a smaller union built a lot of momentum for a muscular
| recognition deal. So they jumped before they were pushed, and
| recognised GMB, since it was the best deal for them as the
| employer.
|
| ADCU's statement: https://www.adcu.org.uk/news-posts/statement-
| on-uber-respons...
|
| If you read the FT report, GMB agreed with Uber that there will
| be no right for the workers to negotiate over pay or minimum
| wage, which is one of the key reasons (and benefits) of having a
| recognised union in the workplace. True, the conditions of
| precarious workers are terrible, but also the pay and minimum
| wage is abysmal, and the employers in these situations are
| basically only operating the way they do because of the terrible
| wages they pay their workers. Uber drivers have to pay for their
| car and fuel out of their own pocket, so in this case the
| employer has every interest to not negotiate wages, since they
| pay little to no operating costs.
|
| (Snippet quoted: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2WG95hXoAIl12J.jpg)
|
| The Uber workers are now in a pickle. Due to UK trade union laws,
| if they wanted to switch unions to a better more militant one,
| they would have to wait til the recognition agreement's been in
| place 3 years, and then wait 3+ years until they can apply for
| recognition with another union, which is a condition baked in to
| all recognition deals in the UK. This kind of inertia is the
| death of any organised labour movement amongst workers. As is
| clear, this is what the trade union act of 92 was supposed to do
| -- make it impossible for workers to quickly build momentum when
| advocating for better conditions for themselves.
|
| So in signing a bad deal for a bit of press coverage, GMB are
| hanging Uber workers out to dry before they've begun, potentially
| for 6 years if the workers dislike the deal. Precarious workers
| aren't served by a yellow union rearranging deckchairs with the
| employer, they deserve to It's potentially a worse situation than
| doing nothing at all, or waiting for better terms from the
| employer. Workers deserve a militant, fighting union.
|
| In fact, in "big three" GMB are far less militant than even their
| counterparts, Unite and Unison. In 2019, Unite and Unison both
| balloted 245 and 234 times respectively, while GMB only managed a
| bit more than half that (125).
|
| Now, GMB have half the members (roughly) of those two, 600k
| compared to the 1.2m and 1.3m of the other two. But then you have
| the case of smaller, more militant unions, like the RMT, who did
| 126 ballots in the same year, with only 80k members!
|
| Data: https://airtable.com/shrEgY32g6wTezsmV/tbl92F0cWh74D8al3
|
| Proportionally it's not about size of the union. GMB is, for my
| money, deserving of a spot in the "big three". And indeed is of a
| size where it should be holding more ballots and sticking up for
| it's members more. Even if Unite or Unison had signed this deal,
| they wouldn't have signed away one of their workers key demands:
| the right to be paid a living wage.
|
| GMB should be congratulated for it's recent work on "fire and
| rehire" campaign at British gas, but in this cynical expansion
| into new industries, it's proving itself woefully inadequate to
| represent workers in the 21st century, and could turn into
| another "yellow" union which exists only to serve it's own
| bureaucrats and robber baron patrons.
| [deleted]
| fouc wrote:
| If unions are good and necessary then let's bake unions into the
| DNA of every business. Why not?
| [deleted]
| stolen_biscuit wrote:
| Cautiously optimistic but I'm always wary of unions that get the
| corporations blessing. We have some like that in Australia (SDA
| stands out as I used to be a member) and they can be incredibly
| toothless at times. But that being said, I would rather be in a
| weaker union than no union at all.
|
| Unionisation like this is always a positive for the workers and I
| hope it brings about positive changes for all of Ubers drivers
| and leads to further unionisation efforts in the ride sharing
| market around the globe. If you're an uber driver in the UK get
| active and push for the improvements you need, and if you're an
| uber driver around the world start organising!
| throwkeep wrote:
| Maybe it's always positive for poor performers since they
| become entrenched, but not always for workers generally, and
| not in the larger picture.
|
| If you don't think that's true, then why not start a company
| where you build in a union from the start? You can even have
| all workers be owners with equal voting rights. There's nothing
| stopping you from doing that! Or join an existing one, as they
| exist, even in the US. It's completely legal and you won't be
| opposed.
|
| Forcing your model on existing companies is where it becomes
| objectionable. Start your own if you think it's a better
| approach. If it is, it'll win out and you won't have to force
| it on others. They will copy it willingly and eagerly.
| advisedwang wrote:
| > You can even have all workers be owners with equal voting
| rights. There's nothing stopping you from doing that!
|
| There 100% is something stopping you from doing that: No
| investor will put money into a worker owned company. This
| means anything which requires up front investment is not
| really possible.
|
| Want to start a software company like this? You better be
| profitable on day 1 or otherwise have a whole team prepared
| to pay for servers out of pocket and work for free.
| throwkeep wrote:
| You do what most people do when they start companies. They
| start small, without VC investment. And with the internet,
| it's easier and cheaper than ever to start one.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| > If it is, it'll win out and you won't have to force it on
| others. They will copy it willingly and eagerly.
|
| I don't really think this is a fair comparison when Uber's
| business model is literally to undercut the competition in a
| market to drive out local competitors, then raise prices once
| they're basically a monopoly in an area.
| [deleted]
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| How else do you get recognition ?
| bwestergard wrote:
| In the U.S., workers are entitled to choose union
| representation by filing a petition with the National Labor
| Relations Board. If the employer refuses to recognize the
| union on the basis of a majority showing of interest, the
| NLRB will schedule an election. If the majority of workers
| vote for the union, it is certified, and the employer is
| legally obligated to bargain. Virtually every democracy has
| some mechanism for certifying unions on the basis of majority
| support.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Its the same in the UK but the company and union will work
| together - not sure what your point is.
|
| I have worked on a successful UK recognition campaign BTW
| whitepaint wrote:
| What if I want to work just for a few hours on a Friday night
| and that's it? What if I want to directly interface with Uber
| without anyone being above me (the union in this case)?
|
| More power is stripped from me in this case as it always
| happens; Union = less freedom for an individual.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > What if I want to work just for a few hours on a Friday
| night and that's it?
|
| In Germany, we have a special class of jobs ("450EUR Jobs")
| for side jobs - regulated under labor laws, no need for fake
| "self employment" stuff.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Additional that whole "fake contractor instead of employee"
| business has long been made illegal here and has not
| destroyed real contracting businesses nor has it prevented
| minimum wage jobs (and illegally below minimum) to exist.
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| Society chooses that. You don't live alone but in a group.
|
| What if I, as a boss, only want to promote women that have
| sex with me? What if I as a hiring manager don't want to hire
| black people? What if I as a teenager accept to work for a
| dollar an hour with 2x unpaid overtime? Why should I even pay
| taxes to support social programs? All these are against my
| 'freedom'
|
| There is a big big big difference in power between
| Uber(others) and individuals, and just because someone small
| minority of people will have their 'freedoms' trampled, it
| doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what is best for society at
| large.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Your given examples are absolutely irrelevant to the
| discussion. If I want to work for Uber there are 2 parties
| involved (me and Uber). And both of them want to work with
| each other. Your examples include just one party wanting
| something and using coercion on another party (except the
| example of taxes, which is a completely different subject
| all together).
| CPLX wrote:
| The very _existence_ of Uber is entirely created by the
| state.
|
| Uber is a complete legal fiction. Unless the state
| decrees that there is such a thing as a corporation, and
| lays down the rules and parameters of that corporation,
| there aren't two parties at all. Just many tens of
| thousands of people who all want to engage in some kind
| of common enterprise without a formal way to do it.
|
| The rules are _completely_ arbitrary, and _all_ of them
| were created out of thin air, by precedent and mutual
| agreement and various forms of governmental action.
|
| Which is _precisely_ the same way the rules around unions
| were created too.
|
| To see a corporation participating in the market as some
| sort of observed natural phenomenon and a union
| participating in the market as some kind of artificial
| creation is to fundamentally misunderstand what's
| actually happening here.
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| No it doesn't and I am sorry you think that. I know some
| women that climbed the corporate ladder (in big national
| baks) by sleeping around, and bosses that were proud of
| it. two people only, and it is still something we don't
| want to happen and make rules about it as it can backfire
| for all.
|
| You can say all that you want about working 4 hours on
| friday night with uber, but here is the thing, Uber has
| 100% full control over if you will or not work with them.
| You have 0 control. Bad ratings? Too many drivers? You
| come from some nationality that is known for 'bad
| driving' (pick whatever the fuck you want as an excuse).
| They have 100% the power. You have zero. If they say: 'if
| even one person gives you less than 5 stars, you are out
| of here' and you have no recourse whatsoever.
|
| This is what we as a society want to prevent. This
| unilateral power dynamic. I'm european. I have seen good
| unions, amazing unions, and very shitty ones. I'm not
| 100% pro-union, but I believe that there should be
| mechanisms to protect the ones with no leverage, because
| if we don't, the less fortunate will just be modern day
| slaves to big corporations, only the name will be
| different.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| I'd like to see how you fare when trying to negotiate
| anything with Uber as a driver.
|
| They set their conditions to a level that is most
| beneficial to them, and you have zero ability to
| negotiate with them. As long as there are enough
| desperate people to accept their conditions, they have no
| motivation to change anything. Why would they?
|
| So you go and organize with other drivers and then you
| can go to Uber and say: if you don't accept our
| conditions, you'll get no drivers full stop. Suddenly the
| negotiations are among equals.
|
| You seem strongly anchored to your freedom, but the
| reality is that vs a huge corporation, you have none to
| begin with. Unless you are independently wealthy, you
| don't even have the freedom to stop participating in the
| labor pool.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| Showing that there exists an example situation where a union
| reduces your freedom does not demonstrate that, taken on the
| whole, unions reduce the freedom of the workers.
| whitepaint wrote:
| What if I don't want to join any unions and I just want to
| do what I want? What rights does the government have to
| tell me that I must join an union? Unions are free to exist
| but it can never be mandatory in a free functioning
| society.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| I'm not disputing that your freedom is being reduced by
| the union, it very well might be. I'm disputing that that
| point proves that there is a net loss of freedom in
| society: there might be a gain in freedom for other
| workers, which might be greater or hard to compare than
| your loss of freedom.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| > What if I don't want to join any unions and I just want
| to do what I want?
|
| Then you do not join any unions. Union membership is
| never mandatory in the United Kingdom:
| https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/trade-union-
| membership-y...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| In the US (unless you live in a right to work state) you
| still have to pay some of the dues. I am not sure if it
| is similar in the UK, but it causes many people to feel
| if they already have to pay dues they might as well be in
| the union. Many people do not want to be in the union and
| do not want to pay dues to the union.
| klyrs wrote:
| Why don't you work for yourself, if your desire for
| individual liberty is so strong?
| whitepaint wrote:
| I actually do. But how is your comment related to what I
| said?
| klyrs wrote:
| You asked:
|
| > What if I don't want to join any unions and I just want
| to do what I want?
|
| You already have freedom from union membership, and
| you're exercising it. What's the problem?
|
| Also, you asked:
|
| > What rights does the government have to tell me that I
| must join an union?
|
| Common misconception. A union can compel an employer to
| be a closed shop through a bargaining agreement. The
| government doesn't tell you that you must join a union;
| the employer will tell you that you need to join the
| union because their relationship with the union is more
| important than their relationship with you. What the
| government _can_ do is forbid the employer from union-
| busting, and also forbid closed-ship agreements.
| eplanit wrote:
| Yes. I'm not sure why this would be celebrated -- it's the
| first step in turning Uber into a taxi company. That'll teach
| those low-skilled workers that an independent, self-managed
| career is just not in the cards for them. Shut up and drive
| the schedule you're assigned. A sad outcome.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The union's power comes from turning individual workers into
| a group. In order to have _collective_ bargaining power,
| inidividuals will have to sacrifice some of their freedoms.
| This is not a problem if all employees want the same things.
| For example, unions can demand higher pay and better hours
| because no individual worker will accept working in worse
| conditions. In this case, the workers sacrifice the freedom
| to accept a job that isn 't up to standard. If there are no
| other workers available to supply the corporation's demand,
| it is forced to raise pay and lower hours.
|
| I would argue having zero leverage against rich corporations
| is always worse than sacrificing a few freedoms. In some
| cases though workers don't actually agree on what they want.
| This means the workers are not actually united in their cause
| and the union of course breaks down.
| CPLX wrote:
| > The union's power comes from turning individual workers
| into a group
|
| Right, and the power of the corporation comes from turning
| individual owners into a group.
|
| Both are complete legal fictions. But only one of these is
| seen as naturally occurring in this discourse.
| avereveard wrote:
| this is a pretty textbook definition of unions, which has
| little parallel with what unions do: they use collective
| bargain power to obtain more power for themselves, with
| some breadcrumbs falling down to the actual workers.
|
| works like this: it's all fun and games until the union can
| get to the point where union participation becomes
| mandatory for joining the sector/company. after
| participation is no longer optional, workers essentially
| end up feeding two owners, with unions demanding higher
| fees, red tapes requiring more union mandated bureaucrats,
| while promises to workers get delayed or forgotten
|
| I'm all for unions, but there's some truth in being
| skeptical and attentive around them. if requirement for
| mandatory union fees and automatic union participation for
| sectors could be outright outlawed, I'd be much more
| optimistic, but these aren't and I don't.
| [deleted]
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Absolutely. I don't like mandatory unions either. If all
| workers don't actually want the same thing, the union
| doesn't actually exist in the first place. In principle
| we shouldn't force it into existence by making them
| mandatory.
| whitepaint wrote:
| If I want to work for Uber given their conditions, who has
| the right to tell me I can't? Who has the right to tell me
| I must obey by some group's rules first (the union in this
| case)? It's bizarre.
|
| I am all for unions. Go and organize people. But unions
| can't have special privileges granted by politicians (who
| very often are just bribed by those that run the union),
| and unions must never be mandatory to join. Mandate to join
| an union is immoral.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Try walking onto a building site and not wearing a hard
| hat or safety boots ands high viz.
| CPLX wrote:
| > But unions can't have special privileges granted by
| politicians
|
| Can corporations have special privileges granted by
| politicians?
|
| Seems to me that without special privileges granted by
| politicians, corporations would not actually exist at
| all.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Who has the right to tell me I must obey by some
| group's rules first (the union in this case)?
|
| In principle, no one. The whole idea of a union is
| everyone wants the same thing and will refuse to work if
| these wants are not met. If people want different things,
| the union doesn't actually exist.
|
| > But unions can't have special privileges granted by
| politicians, and unions must never be mandatory to join.
|
| > Mandate to join an union is immoral.
|
| I agree in principle but in practice things get ugly
| fast. For example, developed countries have immigrant
| workers whose legal presence in the country is
| conditional on their continued employment. Corporations
| have a huge amount of leverage against these workers and
| will probably exploit them. Their ability to exploit
| these people leads to significantly diminished power of
| unions. I just have no idea how they're supposed to solve
| this issue in a way that keeps these principles intact.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Good point. However, those immigrants wouldn't be in a
| country if it wasn't better than the alternative - which
| is their country. Of course it's not always the case,
| sometimes they are forced to which is fucking horrible.
|
| The exploitation of people is obviously wrong but I
| suspect the unions is not the answer.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yeah, it sucks. The market is ruthless in exploiting
| economic disparities. For example, right now 1 USD is
| valued at 5.31 BRL. A salary of $20k/year is a ridiculous
| amount of money in my country. It's more than what the
| vast majority of people make working here. If
| corporations can exploit something like this, they can
| effectively reduce the value of their american workers.
|
| The solution in this case is to somehow make companies
| ignore these economic opportunities. Make them pay
| immigrants the same salary they'd pay a worker from their
| own country.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Pre entry closed shop is illegal in the UK
| bildung wrote:
| It also is in the US, but apparently it is a common trope
| by anti-union politicians to act like this isn't already
| law.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Yes, technically you don't have to join unions anywhere
| in the US. If you want, you can give up your membership
| and benefits, but still have to pay dues. Obviously,
| that's really one-sided, which is why a few states (but
| not the whole US) have passed right-to-work laws.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Federal law forces US unions to represent non members.
| "Right to work" laws force unions to do it for free in
| most states. The rest allow unions to charge agency fees
| to cover the mandated services. Not full dues.
| bildung wrote:
| AFAIR you don't have to pay the full dues, just a part.
| And you still get the benefits that were collectively
| bargained. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-
| protect/the-law/em...
| [deleted]
| klmadfejno wrote:
| The people harmed by the externalities of your personal
| choices because you live in a society where some degree
| of cooperation with the larger community is required.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| And people harmed by the externalities of forced union
| choice. Two sides, same coin.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| Of course. That's the whole point of society.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| In the uk you're not obliged to join, you still have to
| option to accept whatever they negotiate (still without
| joining) and you can just choose to keep doing whatever you
| were doing before.
|
| There's very little upside to uk unions but there is very
| little downside either, they're basically pointless...
| whitepaint wrote:
| > In the uk you're not obliged to join
|
| Thank god. I wish it was a standard for absolutely every
| job that has unions. Leave it to the individual if they
| choose to.
| bildung wrote:
| No idea where you live but it is the same in the US,
| since 1947.
| josephcsible wrote:
| This is completely true in 27 states and a few
| localities, but in the rest of the US, it's only true due
| to a technicality: if you want, you can choose to not get
| the union's benefits but still have to pay them dues.
| Obviously, this isn't what people have in mind.
| airza wrote:
| Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves
| aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the
| individual worker? I keep seeing this perspective and it is
| baffling to me.
| josephcsible wrote:
| No, it's not weird at all. Things aren't automatically good
| for companies just because they're bad for workers. A lot
| of unions are bad for both.
| wccrawford wrote:
| IMO, some unions are bad for _everyone_. Worker and company
| alike.
|
| Most (maybe all?) unions are meant to oppose the company.
| Their stated goal is get more for the workers, which means
| less for the company.
|
| But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping
| companies that can't understand that treating your workers
| well actually has benefits for the company, too, and if you
| treat them too poorly, there will be a net detriment to the
| company. These unions actually help everyone, but it
| requires that the company really have their head up their
| ass.
|
| So it's not surprising to me that every single company
| fights the union. The whole point of the union is to fight
| the company on behalf of the workers.
| gibspaulding wrote:
| > But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping
| companies...
|
| When I was in college I worked for a roofing company
| where there actually seemed to be a pretty healthy
| relationship between the local unions and the companies
| employing their members. The unions ran a great
| apprenticeship program, were super strict on safety, and
| seemed to have a reputation in the area for doing good
| work. This meant that companies had a good idea what they
| were getting when they paid the premium for a journeyman.
| My impression was that being a "union shop" was a
| differentiator for businesses and that there were plenty
| of customers that were willing to pay more for the
| confidence that things would be done right.
|
| Of course the common complaint for a situation like this
| is that you end up with journeymen who abuse their
| position and don't meet the standards they are supposed
| to, but I didn't seem much of this. I got the impression
| that the union did a pretty good job of keeping their
| members in line, especially when it came to safety
| infractions.
|
| It's a shame that this doesn't seem to be more common. It
| was an amazing program since if you could land an
| apprenticeship (and they were desperate for people) you
| could theoretically climb the ladder from poverty to the
| middle class in 5 years.
| seneca wrote:
| > Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company
| moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad
| for the individual worker?
|
| It's entirely possible for unions to be bad for both the
| company and the workers. A loss for one is not inherently a
| gain for the other.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Listen to Milton Friedman. He explains this (and many more
| questions regarding the economy) extremely well. Begin with
| this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
| (The Real World Effects Of Unions)
| kortilla wrote:
| Isn't it kinda weird that so many parents move aggressively
| to prevent their kids from eating candy for dinner if it
| makes them sick?
|
| > I keep seeing this perspective and it is baffling to me.
|
| It's baffling to you because you haven't considered that
| many companies have good relationships with employees and
| are interested in that relationship staying non-
| adversarial.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| The relationship between employer and employee is
| innately adversarial. Employer decides conditions of
| employment and pay, employee decides whether to keep
| working or not. It's a huge power imbalance.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Companies want to keep _workers_ non-adversarial. They
| give themselves the right to be as adversarial as they
| want. They 're likely to be extremely adversarial against
| workers who want a raise in pay, better hours, better
| working conditions, generally anything that would reduce
| their profits in any way.
| airza wrote:
| The company you work for is not your parent, and in fact,
| the history of labor/managerial relationships in the US
| demonstrates pretty unequivocally that your company
| doesn't have your best interests in mind.
| syshum wrote:
| Unions are generally good if your living situation, and
| needs generally mirror the majority of your co-workers.
|
| However if you have unique needs, or desires then your
| needs will take a back seat over the "majority"
|
| In modern society we seem to have a majoritarian view of
| everything, and are losing individualism.
|
| An example of this is the often advocated for Maternity /
| Paternity leave, this is something that is often fought for
| by unions as the majority of employees need / desire that
| leave. However if you are someone that do not intention of
| ever having children then you may prefer more Vacation
| time, or more PTO time, or greater health benefits in some
| other arena, your desires however will be ignored because
| the Majority wants the Maternity / Paternity leave
| CPLX wrote:
| This is such a common myth that ignores that industries
| with absolutely extreme variations in skill and
| compensation between individual workers work quite well
| with unions, like the entertainment and professional
| sports unions.
| syshum wrote:
| It does not ignore it, because those "unions" are not the
| type of unions people generally talk about in the US when
| they talk about Employment Unions, and would not be the
| unions employed in the US for Uber which would most
| certainly be a Closed Shop and not allow for the range of
| individualized labor deals you are talking about when it
| comes to unions for Entertainment and Sports, those
| unions are the EXCEPTION not the rule when it comes to
| Labor Unions in the US
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > if they are so bad for the individual worker
|
| isn't it possible that they are good for the majority of
| workers, but bad for a few? Maybe it is that minority of
| workers that hold this perspective?
| Jenk wrote:
| > What if I want to work just for a few hours on a Friday
| night and that's it?
|
| Out of curiosity - what has that got to do with unions?
| whitepaint wrote:
| Unions = Uber having to pay employee benefits and similar
| things = Strict requirements from Uber = No way I can do it
| for a few hours when I want to.
| Jenk wrote:
| Benefits have stipulations. Pro-rata being one of them,
| others are minimum hours to be applicable.
|
| Anything else?
| whitepaint wrote:
| You just proved my point. What if I don't want benefits
| because they impose stipulations? What if I just want to
| work for a few hours on a Friday night? And I won't be
| able to do so because of the union. That stifles my
| individual freedom.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Why does this hypothetical evil union compel you not to
| work a few hours on a Friday night?
|
| On a related note I've found that those who most
| vigorously defend the 'rights' of workers to be exploited
| are usually not in the position of actually benefiting
| from all those 'rights' that they are proposing as so
| vital. You know what the average uber driver wants? Some
| financial security. They want health insurance, not
| libertarian fan fiction.
| Jenk wrote:
| Stipulations on being eligible (and thus "restricted") by
| them. I.e., in your scenario you are _not_ restricted.
|
| I've got to conclude you are deliberately misconstruing
| the points I've made because you have some kind of
| "Unions are evil" agenda to push. Otherwise how the hell
| did you come to the conclusion that an employment benefit
| that doesn't even affect your fictitious scenario is
| somehow a demonstration of unions are bad.
| whitepaint wrote:
| What counter-argument are you trying to make here? I
| argued unions strip the individual freedom, and your
| response is trying to say exactly what..?
| Jenk wrote:
| That they don't.
| vidarh wrote:
| Uber has only very limited control over which union gets to
| represent workers (not in the UK anyway), so if toothless
| unions ends up representing people, that is because those are
| the unions their workers choose.
| pmyteh wrote:
| Although any union is able to represent members at any
| workplace, it's worth noting that this does affect future
| claims for recognition (and so collective bargaining rights)
| for other unions. In particular, if an employer refuses to
| recognise a union they have a right to apply for 'statutory
| recognition' through the Central Arbitration Committee - but
| this can only succeed _if there is no other recognised union_
| for that bargaining unit[0].
|
| The GMB are a large, well-established, general union. It
| wouldn't surprise me if Uber were much keener on having them
| as the sole recognised union than, say, the Independent
| Workers' Union of Great Britain[1] - who are also organising
| Uber workers and are smaller, scrappier, and more militant
| than the GMB.
|
| [0]: https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-
| employers/statuto...
|
| [1]: https://iwgb.org.uk/
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| In France we call those "yellow unions", as opposed to "red
| unions" which are more adversarial with the company.
|
| The most notable yellow union is CFDT, which is one of the
| largest cross-sector unions in the country. A saying I heard
| once was "Management could establish slavery, and CFDT would
| negotiate the weight of the chains".
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Are not the red unions the communist one :-)
|
| France has multiple versions of unions based on politics for
| those that didn't know.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| So why do yellow unions' members tolerate their
| toothlessness?
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Just because they have a good relationship with the
| management doesn't mean they're toothless. Some employees
| don't want to be threatening a strike every week.
|
| But yeah, people who identify with the more militant unions
| kind of despise the CFDT types.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| The yellow unions wear yellow vests, but the red unions
| wear red shirts.
| pkaye wrote:
| Which union would be best if you work on a starship?
| [deleted]
| maxehmookau wrote:
| The GMB is one of the UK's largest trade unions. If they don't
| have teeth, nobody does, so I'm more than cautiously
| optimistic. This is excellent news.
| [deleted]
| stolen_biscuit wrote:
| I wasn't familiar with them, I just looked them up, thanks
| for letting me know. That has made me a bit more optimistic
| about the path forward there!
| docdeek wrote:
| Not OP but SDA union is - by numbers - one of the largest
| unions in Australia but is not well known for protecting its
| members (mostly retail workers).
| somedangedname wrote:
| I'm hopeful that the RAFFWU (https://raffwu.org.au/) can
| supplant the SDA in the future.
| pydry wrote:
| They haven't been so successful with nurses. 12% effective
| pay cut over a decade.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| For sure. I can only think the situation would be so much
| worse without them.
| pydry wrote:
| Possibly. Either way they dont seem very effective
| compared to the previous decade, or, say, Unite.
|
| Supporting Owen Smith (an anodyne career politician who
| is now a PR flack) in the Labour leadership election in
| what looks like a rigged vote isn't indicative of a pro
| worker outlook, either:
|
| https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/10/17/who-do-you-
| trust-w...
| maxehmookau wrote:
| Unfortunately over a decade of government run by a party
| that are pretty hostile towards trade unions will have
| that effect.
| igammarays wrote:
| Tech startup recognizes basic modern advances that have been made
| in the past 3 centuries, after realizing it provides a
| competitive advantage due to regulatory capture (small upstarts
| can't afford to pay workers as workers).
| thiago_fm wrote:
| They are looking to legalise their own business, after they got
| rid of all direct competitors.
|
| Interesting.
| aetherane wrote:
| Not sure Uber is a startup at this point
| the-dude wrote:
| That is his point.
| kortilla wrote:
| Unions were not an advancement. Some unions fought for
| important advancements last century. That distinction is
| important.
| wpdev_63 wrote:
| Uber's price directly correlates with the amount of business it
| does. It has doesn't have a monopoly on transportation and if the
| union pump up the prices then there will be less jobs. It's not
| like other union shops where they can more or less force a
| monopoly.
|
| Uber was never suppose to be a full time job and by
| unionizing/legitimizing it, it's going to decrease ridership.
| aerodog wrote:
| Somehow my mind first jumped to the idea that two people taking
| an Uber together fell in love and married before the end of the
| ride.
| pachico wrote:
| Sorry, what does it mean that it's recognises it? Can a union be
| not recognised by a company?
| wpietri wrote:
| Yes. Unions bargain on behalf of a group of workers. An
| employer can refuse to talk to the union and instead try to
| continue negotiating with individual workers. Whether that's
| legal depends on the jurisdiction, of course.
| pachico wrote:
| Thanks, you replied to what I was indeed implying. What I'm
| wondering is how a legally registered union can be ignored at
| all, especially when a certain amount of workers claim to be
| represented by it.
| wpietri wrote:
| I think it depends a ton on the jurisdiction. But the way
| they can ignore it is just by ignoring it. E.g., by
| continuing to negotiate with individual workers and firing
| the ones who don't comply. That might be illegal, but
| whether and when it will be enforced are different
| questions.
| pachico wrote:
| Right, but that can happen with well established and
| recognized unions as well, I guess. Thanks. I was
| wondering if there was something I didn't know like "some
| kind of negotiation cannot happen with this union because
| of some legal requirement". Cheers, mate
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| The BBC's staff are fully unionized, and derive extra-contractual
| benefits at the expense of their employers' contract liberty.
| Therefore, they have a financial conflict of interest in how they
| cover this story.
| advisedwang wrote:
| They have no conflict of interest. Neither Uber nor GMB pay BBC
| staff in any way.
|
| The only degree to which they benefit is from whether this
| leads to an overall societal trend that might benefit them. Its
| unreasonable to expect journalists not to comment on any
| element of the public sphere that impacts them in some way.
| E.g. you might as well say BBC staff shouldn't cover the NHS
| because they get NHS care.
| burkaman wrote:
| This is like saying the BBC should not cover any national
| government in the world, since they receive financial benefits
| from their own government.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-27 23:02 UTC)