Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to linger,
It doesn't fit. Which is why Uber themselves should be doing something about it. But they appear to have shot themselves in the foot on this, because when Wellington Airport engaged with them over it, the Airport itself realized that there was no way on earth they could give preference to a service in which a rising number of the drivers openly have no official licenses to operate for passenger hire at all. It literally violates their health and safety policies, and exposes them to huge risk.
So yes, drivers who won't service the airport, like myself, pretty much have to just cancel rides after the fact. It sucks, but that's what a cut price illegal model of business generates, a substandard service. It sucks for me, it's a waste of time and counts against my stats. It sucks for the passenger, who expects of their taxi that they can go to the airport. It doesn't affect Uber much, though. Except reputationally, which they seem not to care about these days.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yes, along those lines. It ultimately has to be something drivers would join of their own free will, on its merits and value to them. That's the modern model of a "union" for contractors. Since the driver base is already divided over the value of legal action (well, actually what they're divided on is about whether they're prepared to pay for it), a model where people don't have to partake of legal action, but can still be members for the other benefits, is what we're trying to build.
Already there is huge benefit just from contact with other drivers, from people giving free advice, tips, tricks, links, etc. This is especially necessary in the case of Uber work because they pretty much provide jack to help you. Their own helpdesk services and support are so poor that I think a lot of drivers would pay to get real help, real advice, about even the simplest aspects of their day to day work for Uber. To even find out what you are supposed to do about the myriad things that can come up in the day-to-day job is a mammoth task, because it has become lore that if you call Uber 5 times, you will get 5 different answers.
Lots of things need the bargaining power of an organization. The absolute debacle that surrounds Uber drivers ability to pick people up from airports is a classic. Uber could have solved this just by actually organizing something. But they don't, leaving it to drivers to cop all the costs of individual negotiations. This is so poorly managed, and the pay is so poor, that lots of drivers simply won't service the airport any more. I won't, it would certainly cost me money to do it, because it is so infrequent, and the airport wants a ridiculously large sum for the right. Several hundred dollars per year. I'd have to do something like 50 trips to the airport just to break even on how much they want for it. Taxis can have that work - at least they can get paid enough for the jobs to make it even vaguely worthwhile.
-
Speaker: The Government you Deserve, in reply to nzlemming,
Because that’s not how constitutional monarchy works.
In terms of wielding power, the monarchy have no great power. But in terms of a refusal to even express an opinion, that is simply the policy of an individual monarch. It's quite possible that Charles might do it very differently. It's possible (although, I agree, very unlikely), that the Queen, faced with the loss of almost every last piece of the Empire she was born to, might actually change her mind. It's actually a decision that might have consequences that affect her and her direct family. Her own husband might end up the Duke of Nothing, pretty soon.
80 years this December?
He chose to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee. IIRC, he did it so as to NOT force a governmental collapse. The power was mostly in his hands to do that or not do it, and he chose not to invoke a constitutional crisis over his right to marry his choice of partner. I doubt if he ever really wanted to be King at all.
I'm not that invested in this discussion. I just think it's an interesting angle, that a country that is collapsing in ruin might actually have it's official head of state pull their finger out and do at least one damned thing to stop it. But the self-styled practicality of the British system is under serious question here, so I'll certainly go with the realpolitik that moves by the Queen are unlikely. As much part of the problem, really, and I'm mostly suggesting all this to point that out. The British governmental system is moving from quaint joke to farce every day.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to goforit,
I know what you mean goforit. Getting people to part with an actual membership fee to cover the costs of what we’re trying to do to provide for their rights is not easy.
The old school Union model just isn’t going to work. Instead, we’re working on a model that has differing classes of membership depending what you want to our of it, and aims to provide more than just advocacy and group action coordination, but also value added services.
In a functional sense we’re aiming to fill a whole lot of gaps in what really is an employment situation. I’d like to think that Uber would not even be in conflict with many of the goals. But who can really say at the moment? Their way of doing business is so master/slave at the moment that they might object on principle, in which case we have a real scrap on our hands.
I’m holding out hope, however, that they will simply see the value of the association. But it could really genuinely be their belief system that somehow they are not simply the worst kind of exploitative capitalists, but instead that there really is some new economy in which it is OK to pay people this poorly, and still demand extremely high levels of service from them. It may even be that they just don’t know how badly they pay their drivers.
It’s a major goal of the association to get the truth on this. That, in itself, will be a huge value-add, if not for Uber, then definitely anyone thinking of working for them. In possession of the true facts, it may well be that there are still large numbers of people that are going to keep happily providing their labour. But I personally doubt it.
Instead I think what will happen is the recent substantial drop in service quality that has been noted by riders all around will continue and Uber’s brand will suffer badly and be extremely vulnerable to competitors, many of which are racing to this market.
-
Wow, that is a great article by McCrone. Did his research, took all sides, etc. I was really quite nervous about what those photos were going to be put against, but that is a good solid piece of balanced journalism. Stoked!
-
I don't have much choice plugging away at the brick wall, being a spokesperson. Yes it's a chore. I'm finding dealing with media to be so, too. There are many small tedious jobs to do at the moment. Unfortunately, that's the stuff lasting change is made of, lots and lots of boring work. At the moment my main job is data collection and cleaning. The fun business of analyzing it and making big claims or huge strategic decisions is some way off. Also building an association website is all new to me and Jesus that's a lot of work. Very lucky to have free experienced help on that.
-
I am? Where? Soz, I'm without internet apart from on the phone, have been waiting 30 days for Chorus to let my ISP reconnect my fibre. It's like the bad old days when the phones were managed by a government department. But worse because you literally can't call Chorus about it.
-
Speaker: The Government you Deserve, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Well it's yet another one of those battles over who's king. Oh so important when you have a monarchy.
I doubt Charles III will get beheaded. But he might well either be personally asked to abdicate, deposed by Act of Parliament or force a republic into play.
He could. Or they might just let him carry on, ignoring him where convenient, letting him say whatever he likes. No monarch has been forced to abdicate for a long, long time. I doubt there's a British politician with the stones to do it now.
BTW, I'm not a royalist. Quite the opposite, I think it's ridiculous. But it's the system, and I believe in holding those in charge to account when a system breaks down. I don't hold out any hope that the Queen will have anything to say. But I think she should. This is one of the few times where it might matter, where it might actually justify the position even existing. That she will sit back and let the nation collectively shit its pants and die is just a testament to the complete inadequacy of the existing system.
-
Speaker: The Government you Deserve, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I don’t think there’s much of an appetite to revisit this.
I'm not so sure. It's a game they are very careful how they play, sure. But there's not going to be any monarchs losing their heads in this day and age, for starters. And Charles, at least, has been a fan of having political opinion. He clearly thinks it's a real job, even if his Mum's policy has been to treat it as entirely titular. At least so they say. Who can know how much real influence is wielded by someone in constant contact with the elected PM, who holds an official position that carries a lot of gravitas? Especially since the matter at hand really does go to many matters relating to Bosworth Field and far beyond. When sovereignty itself is what is at stake, I find it almost impossible to believe that the sovereign having no opinion is either true, or axiomatically wise.
-
Speaker: The Government you Deserve, in reply to ,
Interesting stuff. It's a pity the article doesn't say whether she did or didn't veto the particular acts listed.