Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#2Serious 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.).
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#3Serious 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.).
Agreed. I can swallow these "the company owes us something" arguments for businesses so large they make up the entire employment for a city, but not cases like this.
It's unsettling that now every business has a big moral obligation to make sure employees make the best choices for themselves.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#4Serious 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 year.
I'm not saying gig workers' circumstances are nearly as bad as those in the 19th century, I'm just illustrating the principle. The discussion then continues at 'what is an acceptable equilibrium'. Of which certain people, unsurprisingly, find that today's is not OK.
Note that I'm not saying here which side of the discussion I side on (that's a political question not worth rehashing here I think), just pointing out the (rather obvious) argument against total market freedom in this particular market (labor).
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#5Serious 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.).
Consider: It’s in both the workers’ and reporter’s best interest to make it sound worse than it is. Many would go so far as hyperbole, or straight up deceit.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#6Good that it is absolutely not an one-sided article, favoring the viewpoint of the union exclusively. Garnered with some anecdotes of somebody having had an accident on the job once, or people sometimes not having assignments, to make it all seem oh so horrible.
I would guess a lot of these Couriers are quite happy with their existence. It enables them to earn some money on the side, while they try to become starving artists or whatever.
In any case, the cure for worker exploitation is not more rules. It is creating more jobs. Then workers with bad jobs can simply switch to a better job.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#7Too bad the governments of the world seem more interested in protecting the corporations than the general population.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#8Good that it is absolutely not an one-sided article, favoring the viewpoint of the union exclusively. Garnered with some anecdotes of somebody having had an accident on the job once, or people sometimes not having assignments, to make it all seem oh so horrible. I would guess a lot of these Couriers are quite happy with their existence. It enables them to earn some money on the side, while they try to become starving…
Lmfao, simply switch to a better job. Simple solution for a simple mind.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#9Serious 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…
That's understandable, your principle makes sense with that. An acceptable equilibrium and how much of it is regulated is a very political thing.
Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision
#10Serious 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…
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 Enemy of the People's Press, but offers higher potential returns, and may be able to eke out an existence in a niche that #1 could never serve.
3) invest in some less active financial instrument alchemy that employs zero local people and threatens no publicity waves
There is (maybe) an argument that #1 is preferable to #2, but it's at least complicated. However, I think it's general agreed that both #1 & #2 are preferable to #3.
If we're already talking Unions and unfair treatment of contractors 5 years into the existence of a type 1 here, one that no one knows could even exist under traditional employment circumstances, we may very well be driving funding into the reduced hassle of #3.
That's certainly what it would do to me, though granted my "fuck it" threshold is 5-10x lower than the average person's.