What's in the News? 2.0

[TheGlyphstone]

Capitol Hill on lockdown again after a man rams his car through a barrier, hitting two officers, then charging at the others with a knife. Attacker and one officer are confirmed dead.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/02/police-respond-call-possible-shooting-u-s-capitol/7064125002/

[stormwyrm]

Uber has been ordered to pay $1.1 million after a blind woman was refused service 14 times, with one asshole even dropping her off somewhere else after falsely claiming she was at her destination. The behaviour continued even after she complained to Uber. Of course Uber denied that they themselves were responsible for this clear discriminatory behaviour, because they continue maintain that their drivers are "contractors", not employees.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56583428

[Beorning]

I hate Uber. Awful company...

[Haibane]

They have been fighting lawsuits over the London license for years, mostly I think because there is no market for yet another operator and the black cabs are losing out. There does seem to be a lack of firm regulation and education of their drivers. The pandemic has not helped as fare numbers are well down. Tempers must be strained on all sides.

Jan 2021:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55742569

Nov 2019:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50544283

Sept 2017:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-41362033

[Beorning]

Back here, there are two problems with Uber.

Firstly, Uber drivers here long operated without any regulations. Uber brazenly claimed that they, as a company. aren't a taxi operator, just the "app provider". So, their "contractors" didn't have to pay for any licenses, weren't checked for qualifications, backgrouds etc. and didn't pay for accident securities. In result, the "contractors" could operate cheaply... but at the risk for the clients. Because, when a client got into an Uber car, they weren't guaranteed that the driver would be able to drive, wouldn't behave aggressively... and, if any traffic accident happened, they would be compensated financially. Also, that hurt legitimate taxi drivers, who are obligated by law to pay for securities and licenses, have to pass exams etc. All of this because Uber was taking advantage of a legal loophole. Some of this problem were solved, I think, and now Uber drivers are required to pay for licenses etc. But it's not like Uber is happy about this...

The second problem with Uber is exploitation. Uber claims they aren't a real taxi operator and that their drivers are "contractors", including private citizens driving people around occassionally and getting compensated for it. But, in truth, many Uber drivers (at least here) consider this their *job*. And if you look at the actual rates Uber pays them, then it becomes obvious that this "job" doesn't pay that good. Uber is making a lot of money, but most of it goes to its staff - meanwhile, the drivers doing the actual legwork get a small piece of the cake. This is not an oversight on Uber's part, this is a whole business model deliberately built on exploitation. Ugh...

[Haibane]

My thoughts on that though are that no-one is forced to become an Uber driver. They all choose to do it and if people literally choose to be exploited, that's their business. Its ugly, but its capitalism.

[TheGlyphstone]

My thoughts on that though are that no-one is forced to become an Uber driver. They all choose to do it and if people literally choose to be exploited, that's their business. Its ugly, but its capitalism.
[/quote

Nobody chooses to be exploited, that's ridiculous to even suggest. It's not like Uber advertises its abusive policies, quite the opposite - all their recruitment efforts emphasize your freedom and profit-making potential. Saying it's their fault for being taken in by deceptive advertising is very much victim-blaming here.

[Fox Lokison]

My thoughts on that though are that no-one is forced to become an Uber driver. They all choose to do it and if people literally choose to be exploited, that's their business. Its ugly, but its capitalism.

That's... quite a statement, "choosing to be exploited". I don't really think that's accurate. And tbh I think it's a pretty distasteful statement to make. It posits that there's a choice for people at all, for one, to get another job. For another, it blames them for the acts of a company, which is exactly the strategy of contracting vs employing. But, you're right, it's ugly and it's capitalism, and that's the problem with capitalism.

The second problem with Uber is exploitation. Uber claims they aren't a real taxi operator and that their drivers are "contractors", including private citizens driving people around occassionally and getting compensated for it. But, in truth, many Uber drivers (at least here) consider this their *job*. And if you look at the actual rates Uber pays them, then it becomes obvious that this "job" doesn't pay that good. Uber is making a lot of money, but most of it goes to its staff - meanwhile, the drivers doing the actual legwork get a small piece of the cake. This is not an oversight on Uber's part, this is a whole business model deliberately built on exploitation. Ugh...

That's the issue with using contractors. The work is accessible for "unskilled laborers" nine times out of ten, requires little to no extra work on their part to get the job, and supposedly, pays very well. Contract labor in factories is one such example of this - the factory itself isn't the one paying or training us, nor all that liable for us, so when shit goes sideways for us, the contracting company's best interest interest is to just fire or ignore the people making complaints, so they can keep the contract with the company. Uber's not entirely the same model, but similar exploitation, imo. You find a group of people who need the money, and have the things needed to work that job (time, location, in Uber's case, a car...) and plug them in. These contractors or contracting companies take the blame and the fall for any fuckups, and the main company itself continues on unbothered - and more importantly, not liable.

Those kinds of models especially prey on desperate people in need of an income, and who can work those kinds of hours or do those kinds of jobs because they have no choice. They need an income, and they aren't able to get it through conventional means, or wait to get it, or get a degree or certification. Things like Uber are jobs people who are disabled work, for example. Combine that with false advertising and a business model that preys on people, and, well.... Yup.

[Haibane]

That's... quite a statement, "choosing to be exploited". I don't really think that's accurate. And tbh I think it's a pretty distasteful statement to make. It posits that there's a choice for people at all, for one, to get another job. For another, it blames them for the acts of a company, which is exactly the strategy of contracting vs employing. But, you're right, it's ugly and it's capitalism, and that's the problem with capitalism.

As soon as any Uber driver discovers their pay is insufficient to cover their needs (which they may not have realised up to that point) they can choose to stop being an Uber driver. It seems however than many do not. If people are claiming that Uber is exploiting people with its pay policies and even while knowing that, people continue to choose to be an Uber driver then its fair to say that they are choosing to work for an exploitative employer. In that respect they are choosing to be exploited in that narrow sense. I fail to see the argument against what I said.

Yes, there is choice for people. If they have sufficient means to own a vehicle worth a considerable amount of money then they have choice over how they work; they certainly have choice over who they drive for and what they deliver or carry in their vehicle.

That's the issue with using contractors. The work is accessible for "unskilled laborers" nine times out of ten, requires little to no extra work on their part to get the job, and supposedly, pays very well. These contractors or contracting companies take the blame and the fall for any fuckups, and the main company itself continues on unbothered - and more importantly, not liable.

Exactly. We are in complete agreement. Uber is a terrible business model and is exploitative.

Those kinds of models especially prey on desperate people in need of an income, and who can work those kinds of hours or do those kinds of jobs because they have no choice.

That is where we disagree. If you own a car you have the choice how you use it to get paid. You absolutely do not need to work for Uber. You can work for all manner of courier cmpanies, food delivery companies, and so on. There is a whole slew of choice and that's just regarding their car. People have choices in jobs that do not use a car. I'm not saying its easy but choice is self-evidently there.

@TheGlyphstone -

People are choosing to drive for Uber while being exploited. What other way can we describe their choice to continue working for Uber when alternative work is available elsewhere?

[Fox Lokison]

Yeah, I'm just gonna leave this alone. There's so much wrong with that and I have no patience for it. The opinion that people "choose to be exploited" is a disgusting one, and not worthy of any time or debate. It can go in the trash where it belongs.

[Oniya]

That is where we disagree. If you own a car you have the choice how you use it to get paid. You absolutely do not need to work for Uber. You can work for all manner of courier cmpanies, food delivery companies, and so on. There is a whole slew of choice and that's just regarding their car. People have choices in jobs that do not use a car. I'm not saying its easy but choice is self-evidently there.

One of the last things that a person on the edge will give up is their car.  The other is their phone.  Once they've lost or damaged those, they lose even the potential of getting something better.  Employers want someone that can work the hours they need.  Hiring companies need to be able to contact someone.  Hell, you can't even fill out a job application in person any more - you have to go to a website.

She  had  no  particular  illusions  about  working.  She  disliked  the  shop, she disliked  Madame  Alfrege, she disliked the eternal subservience  to ill-tempered   and  impolite   customers,   but  she   doubted   very much whether  she  could  obtain  any  other  job  which  she  would  like  better, since she had none of the necessary qualifications.

Edward's assumption that a wide range of choice was open to her was simply  unbearably  irritating  this  morning.  What  right  had  Edward  to live in a world so divorced from reality?

[Fox Lokison]

The illusion of choice is one of the issues in capitalism. It presents us with this idea that we have the autonomy to choose our own course in life, and all we need to do is steer in the right direction. The reality tends to have a lot more icebergs under the water. The illusion of choice, psychologically, has a lot of benefits. If we believe we have free will, and choice to do whatever we want, then we tend to be more confident, assertive, and push for what we want. Humans want control over their choices and actions. Thing is, many of our choices are "really shoddy thing" or "really shoddy thing, but in pink". Both are lousy choices. Neither is really better than the other, but because we see that we have a choice to begin with, it gives us that feeling that we have more power than we do.

Yes, the choice may exist on what exploitative method of income you can pursue. That fails to change the fact that a system of exploitation exists, and needs to be dealt with, instead of the blame being pushed off onto the people in the system, all for a little psychological comfort.

's like telling someone they've got a choice between slavery and indentured servitude. The difference is so miniscule and so pointless, and yet the blame is put on the person for making a "bad choice".

All that line of thinking does is perpetuate a system of exploitation, by saying "you can choose who takes advantage of your labor". Choice really isn't always worth it.

[Beorning]

That is where we disagree. If you own a car you have the choice how you use it to get paid. You absolutely do not need to work for Uber. You can work for all manner of courier cmpanies, food delivery companies, and so on. There is a whole slew of choice and that's just regarding their car. People have choices in jobs that do not use a car. I'm not saying its easy but choice is self-evidently there.

Oh, come on. Owning a car doesn't necessarily mean you're wealthy or something. And sorry, no, it's not always easy to get a job. Especially if you are, say, an immigrant... And here in Poland there are quite a few Uber drivers that are immigrants from Ukraine.

And in any case, you can't just dismiss the issue of abusive / exploitative employment practices like that. You could also say that nobody forces anyone to work in an Amazon warehouse - but does this mean Amazon's practices toward its employees there shouldn't be discussed?

[Haibane]

People are forming arguments against issues I didn't mention which is called a strawman argument. Please don't do that.

I did not say it is easy to get a job (although every Job Centre in the UK lists thousands of jobs, literally, I've been there and gone through that sausage machine. I also for several months travelled to one each week several miles by bus in order to attend interviews. I got a job for a couple of months that I really did not want to do. But I did it. Yes it sucked but it was practical and if people want to work they will make the effort.)

I did not suggest people who own cars are wealthy. In fact people who choose to do driving jobs are often anything but. However car ownership is one of the known measures by which I understand statisticians measure wealth. Being poor limits choice but does not eliminate it. Owning an iPhone and being able to afford a monthly contract is definitely a sign of wealth. I do not and have never owned an iPhone of any sort and I get by just fine. However this is incidental to the discussion.

I am not dismissing anything about exploitative companies or practices. It needs to stop.

I didn't say exploitative issues should not be discussed. They need to be.

In addition to that I have never said nor do I support any suggestion that exploitative working practices should not be dealt with.

@ Fox Lokison - "Choice really isn't always worth it."

I didn't say it was. I said it existed. You literally have to be on or close to the poverty line, homeless, trapped in a cycle of abuse (in which category I include modern slavery/worker trafficking which is a issue now in the UK) or live in a dictatorship to not have choice.

If people wish to engage in a subject someone is presenting their views on then at least please discuss those issues and address their views and where that person may be wrong or misinformed because if I am wrong or misinformed I want to be made aware of that and take it on board. Please don't present other issues that person never mentioned, then build an argument against those. I think this board has rules up top about specifically not doing that.

Uber sucks, okay? Its working practices need to change. Okay? So does Amazon and many other companies out there. Okay? Capitalism has a really unpleasant side it it. We all agree on this. I no longer buy from Amazon. That impacts my choice but hey, I go elsewhere, even if its less convenient.

But workers still have choice and can chose to work elsewhere.

I will now leave the discussion. If you wish to, please PM me on this.

[Fox Lokison]

The only response I made to you directly, Haibane, was that "people choose to be exploited" is a disgusting sentiment I don't respect.

The rest is discussion of the subject of exploitive labor overall.

People are allowed to voice their opinions right back on statements that have been made. Including the fallacies in them, or the broader discussions they open a door for.

As I've said. It's a disgusting statement. And that's the beginning and end of my opinion on what you think or said. Please do not use my words as some presumption of your thoughts. They are my opinions on the subject, not your stance. My comments on choice had nothing to do with you, were not directed at you, and have nothing to do with what your stance might be.

Just to make myself abundantly clear, here.

[Blythe]

I was reading this and it was a bit of news that struck me as interesting!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/01/supreme-court-ruled-facebook-didnt-violate-u-s-robocall-ban/6812904002/

This is so...weird.

On the one hand, generally technology nowadays is evolving faster than the legal system can keep up with. (Not that the USA legal system was ever known for speediness) 

On the other hand, the guy in the original suit (from 2015) was upset because he got texts/notifications for a service he did not have at all (Facebook). Which I can 100% understand as a more evolved form of robo-calling, essentially.

[Haibane]

Disturbing act of misogyny against a female Egyptian ship captain involving deliberately doctored photos issued by an Arab media outlet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56615521

[Haibane]

A dark day in Arkansas; and with two other southern states considering similar laws it seems the south is going backwards in time, not forwards.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56657625

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

US politicans, take lots of the corporate money, but want corporatons silent. Oh ok.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mcconnell-warns-biz-off-political-speech-stupid-76903039

[Fox Lokison]

US politicans, take lots of the corporate money, but want corporatons silent. Oh ok.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mcconnell-warns-biz-off-political-speech-stupid-76903039

“They have the right to participate in the political process,” McConnell told reporters. But he said, “If I were running a major corporation, I'd stay out of politics.”

The biggest pile of bullshit in that entire article. If he was running a corp, he'd be funding all his buddies. Dunno why he thinks he'd be such an upstanding citizen when he's never been one in his life.

[Haibane]

I thought US politics was almost entirely funded by big corporations. I suspect people like McConnell are scared that corporations are going to start wielding political muscle due to public opinion concerning unfair or negative lawmaking and that could be disastrous for a political party that doesn't work to keep big corporations on their side.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

They take the little donatons, from individuals, too. And, if you’re Mr Trump, you steal from those people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.hybrid

[ShadowFox89]

The GQP has long only cared if power is used against them. As long as the right people aren't being killed, being oppressed, it's okay.

[Oniya]

I thought US politics was almost entirely funded by big corporations. I suspect people like McConnell are scared that corporations are going to start wielding political muscle due to public opinion concerning unfair or negative lawmaking and that could be disastrous for a political party that doesn't work to keep big corporations on their side.

There was a controversial decision in 2010 known as 'Citizens United', where it was decided that corporations could spend unlimited funds towards elections, because limiting such spending violated free speech.  (Longer explanation here https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained)  This is generally what's referred to when you hear someone talking about how 'Corporations are (or are not) people.'  That is to say, a corporation apparently has the constitutional rights that are usually granted to individuals.

You'll note that the 'Citizens United' plaintiff refers to a conservative non-profit.

Since then, there has been a surge in 'superPACs' and dark (or at least very very grey) money coming into US elections.

[Fox Lokison]

It's basically just complicated bribery, because if America didn't wrap itself in red tape and justifications, then it's not really American, is it?

My eyes roll back into my head every time I hear "limiting spending violated free speech". I still cannot believe THAT justification is the one that passed.