Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I like unions. I am not a fan of trade guilds. They serve different functions, though there are times unions themselves forget it and those are times that they and I often end up on the other side of issues (like immigration). The AMA and ABA are trade guilds.
The cab issue is a bit different, and not related to unions at all. It's related to following the law. Uber is an organized criminal operation that disregards laws that apply to other businesses, like wage payment and minimum wage laws, laws on benefits, etc., based on rather thin legal reasoning. Uber's legal positions on employment law are just like John Yoo's - a thin veil for knowingly criminal behavior, attempting to create cover to protect the perpetrators. Their position on licensing law isn't much better. But they're being protected because they're a fad with the UMC.
Uber's also not new. It's just a piecework labor system. If we can't hire them to do the work at the factory because of the damn minimum wage laws and 40 hour work week, let's just send the work home with them, pay them by the piece, and make enforcing the law almost impossible. Again, we got laws....
|
I'm not arguing with you, as I tend to agree about Uber. But how is their treatment of drivers different than the treatment of cabbies by the owners of medallions (when it comes to pay, hours worked, etc.)? Is it just that they have found a way around the licensing fees?
I just googled and see that they are avoiding "insurance provisions, minimum vehicle standards and signage requirements" with which cab companies must comply. But when it comes to taking advantage of a non-employee/contractor system, how are they different than any cab company out there?
TM
