Oy! So much ignorance, so little time and patience!
Sat May 7, 2016, 12:18 AM
scscholar (874 posts)
2. That's sad
You could have supported someone trying to take care of their family instead of just some guy with a car.
Somebody didn't read the OP:
Sat May 7, 2016, 12:12 AM
RandySF (11,278 posts)
Finally tried Uber...Not Shabby
I've resisted trying Uber for the longest time until I was stuck in a spot with no public transportation or taxi service.
As another DU member pointed out, many Uber (and Lyft) drivers are supporting families as well. "scscholar"'s real problem is that Uber isn't part of municipalities' regulation-forced taxi service oligopoly, and Uber drivers basically can't be unionized.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:05 AM
egalitegirl (253 posts)
10. Regulations should be for corporations, not people
So,
eliteistgirl would support deregulating family farms (contrary to stereotype there still are many such) and other family-run businesses? This purported female has allowed her faux-Populism to lure her into posting pure
Prog-Heresy - saying that some one or something should
NOT be regulated.
Labor unions used to be how workers associated freely for collective bargaining rights. Now labor unions are just another form of mega corporations that control the supply of labor and which are run by white people who exploit minorities by forcing them to pay membership dues.
Even more heresy from
eliteistgirl!
"(W)orkers associated freely"? In what fantasy world?! Union thuggery against people who would not join was and is as rife as the thuggery angainst employers during strikes!
"(L)abor unions are just another form of mega corporations"?! Gasp! The willfully blind squirrel found a nut! But truths that contradict Prog ideology and narratives are heresy!
"(E)xploit minorities by forcing them to pay membership dues"? WTH? Unions don't charge "whites" membership dues? Unions charge "whites" lower membership dues than they do minorities? There was a time when unions did exclude blacks and other minorities, thereby excluding minorities from certain highly remunerative jobs (I remember a big lawsuit against the Plumbers Union in SF in the late 60s or early 70s), but that was decades in the past, AFAIK.
the unions designated by the establishment politicians
Ummmm ... no. An existing union comes into an non-union business, "persuades" employees to vote to unionize, and the employer enters into a contract with the union. That's a simplified and sanitized version of what happens, but politicians don't enter such pictures unless a company tries to defend itself. If companies do fight back, then those politicians who have been bought-and-paid by the union participate in the union's demonization and harassment of the company. And as BH hinted, those union-bought pols are Ds, the party for which DU was created to support.
