On the other hand, a union that's run by people depending on uber as a full time source of income has a significant interest in reducing the number of people driving for a "fling" or part time - more surge pricing, more guarantee minimum income from uber, less risk of low ratings leading to punitive action, since uber can't just replace them easily.
My point is that while unions benefit some workers, they don't benefit all workers. It's not a black and white situation.
> And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages.
This will only apply to the top 10% of Union workers. The workers who came late (or the majority of Uber drivers) will receive less pay, have less power, work longer hours, and fewer benefits than the "senior" drivers. Do you really think unions will help everyone? They, just like everything else in this world, are designed to benefit the top.
Contrary to mistaken public opinion, union members are paid commensurate with their skills and seniority. It's foolish to require a company to pay all employees the same regardless of ability and unions make allowances for that in negotiations.
Can you give some examples of this? I'm most familiar with California's public employee unions, which are admittedly an extreme sample, but nearly every attempt to do performance measurement is fought tooth and nail.
