Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision • Hacker News Board

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#21

Post by noelwelsh » Thu, May 24, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

menacingly wrote: post #10

roel_v wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true to a certain extent, but experience (19th century beginning-of-industrialization) has taught us that the floor (i.e., the equilibrium) is bad enough that we don't want that sort of circumstances. In other words, it turns out that people want to work to eat so badly that they'll put up with working 14-hour days and letting their 10 year old children work in factories that literally kill 10's of them per ye…

This is a reasonable position and well-stated, but my concern is the implication that you will be vilified if you start a business that can't maintain a full time workforce with benefits. So, let's say you're an investor. You've got the choice of: 1) invest in a business with traditional happy lifer employees 2) invest in a business that treats its workforce like disposable contractors and may eventually become an En…

I very much do not like the argument you are making, as the implication is that no employer, or indeed anyone with power, should be criticised.

Society should work for the benefit of society, not just those in a position of power. We are seeing a change in how employment works, and we (i.e. society) need to work out how to handle this change. This article is part of the debate. You should not try to shut down the debate.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#22

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Thu, May 24, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #19

Certhas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had a universal income, and people would be free to sell or not sell their labor, we could talk about a meaningful equilibrium based on individuals preferences and choice. In that situation I doubt we would see many people taking on these jobs (including the parentheticals you mention) with these conditions.

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an…

If we imagine that "life goodness" can be measured by a single real number, and we model it with a normal distribution with a mean somewhere on the positive axis, then one way to say what you describe is that we create a threshold somewhere along the left-hand tail of that distribution, and we declare anything below the threshold as morally unacceptable, in need of social constraints that prevent the permissibility of outcomes falling further to the left than our threshold.

As technology enables expansion of the right-side tail for the relatively most wealthy, it seems like a reasonable utilitarian goal to say that we should adjust the left-side threshold more and more to the right, in a "optimize the well-being of the least well off" sense.

So I'd view this ever rightward moving threshold as a very good thing that represents exactly what we want in terms of progress.

If we ever got to a point where we said, welp "poor people" are now above the magic threshold (e.g. because the people on the left tail of the distribution mostly have hot showers, cell phones, and Netflix), so what more do they want? ... why are they complaining? ... this would be incredibly frightening. Essentially the wealthy would be deciding at which threshold upward human progress gets to stop, in favor of creating skewness in the distribution that concentrates more wealth into the right-side tail, as long as that left-side threshold stays above the "hot showers, cell phones, and Netflix" line.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#23

Post by kazagistar » Thu, May 24, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #19

Certhas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had a universal income, and people would be free to sell or not sell their labor, we could talk about a meaningful equilibrium based on individuals preferences and choice. In that situation I doubt we would see many people taking on these jobs (including the parentheticals you mention) with these conditions.

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an…

Are you saying that "food, heat, and a roof over your head" is an arbitrary social construct?

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#24

Post by menacingly » Thu, May 24, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

noelwelsh wrote: post #21

menacingly wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a reasonable position and well-stated, but my concern is the implication that you will be vilified if you start a business that can't maintain a full time workforce with benefits. So, let's say you're an investor. You've got the choice of: 1) invest in a business with traditional happy lifer employees 2) invest in a business that treats its workforce like disposable contractors and may eventually become an En…

I very much do not like the argument you are making, as the implication is that no employer, or indeed anyone with power, should be criticised. Society should work for the benefit of society, not just those in a position of power. We are seeing a change in how employment works, and we (i.e. society) need to work out how to handle this change. This article is part of the debate. You should not try to shut down the deb…

I regret that I came across that way, because the debate is great. Criticism is important.

I just think before you fight for something, you should be certain that what you're after is worth winning.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#25

Post by Certhas » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #19

Certhas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had a universal income, and people would be free to sell or not sell their labor, we could talk about a meaningful equilibrium based on individuals preferences and choice. In that situation I doubt we would see many people taking on these jobs (including the parentheticals you mention) with these conditions.

I posit that, in that case, a new "normal" baseline would be established by social consensus (perhaps, owning a home, smart phone, access to media, high quality medical care, and organic food) that is above what is afforded by the UBI. Falling below that threshold would then be deemed just as unacceptable as the poverty line today. And people won't solve it by taking on these undesirable jobs, they'll rail against an…

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by "won't solve it by taking on jobs just as today". Today people take on these jobs, and in most countries that I know of, the social welfare net is contingent on actively looking for work. Today your (legal) options are: Try to work or die.

Do you think you can get a fair price if the other side knows you have to sell with a gun to your head?

I suspect most people would work for reasons you mentioned, but I also suspect that the price for undesirable unskilled labor would be much much much higher than it is today.

Which would incentivize automating this type of labor first. As it should be.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#26

Post by maze-le » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:06 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

The 'equilibrium' might be a nice theoretical model, but realistically, it fails, since not all people are in the same circumstances.

In any society there will always be people, who don't have the resources/skills to take another job. Either its geographically located elsewhere any you are tied to certain location (there might be plenty of reasons for this). Or the job is above your skill level, and you cannot afford an education. Or you are in a position where you just cannot survive some weeks of financial insecurity.

Thats why "workes rights" are important, its not just about you and me. Its mainly about people who don't have the means to say: "Fuck it I'm outta here!".

Basic income could be societal anchor, that creates the conditions for such an equilibrium.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#27

Post by finebalance » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #4

kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

That's true to a certain extent, but experience (19th century beginning-of-industrialization) has taught us that the floor (i.e., the equilibrium) is bad enough that we don't want that sort of circumstances. In other words, it turns out that people want to work to eat so badly that they'll put up with working 14-hour days and letting their 10 year old children work in factories that literally kill 10's of them per ye…

You don't need to go back to the 19th century for that. Any modern sweatshop, of which there are many, will do.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#28

Post by labourcurious » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #4

kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

That's true to a certain extent, but experience (19th century beginning-of-industrialization) has taught us that the floor (i.e., the equilibrium) is bad enough that we don't want that sort of circumstances. In other words, it turns out that people want to work to eat so badly that they'll put up with working 14-hour days and letting their 10 year old children work in factories that literally kill 10's of them per ye…

Concretely though, in London, it takes under a day to find a "real" job in a restaurant or a bar just by walking around and handing out CVs, even if your English is very bad.

Deliveroo bikers have chosen Deliveroo over those, and there must be a reason for that, which the article fails to mention.

I'm also not taking sides, I just want to point out it's flat out wrong to say "if they're doing this in these conditions, it is probably because they don't have a choice".

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#29

Post by isoprophlex » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

A slippery slope-style argument, as described at the end of the article (the rise of zero hour contracts): some workers will accept even the worst possible conditions, and this will shift the entire economy towards seeing this as acceptable.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#30

Post by davidhyde » Thu, May 24, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

I think that this is a failing of the author of the article itself. Did they interview a couple of random deliveroo contractors and to build up some statistics or did they simply interview the union representative and a handful cherry picked others and conclude that this was the consensus of all deliveroo contractors.