Doctors pay has been increasing a lot and it has nothing to do with union. In fact they just do one thing, lobby to not allow a perfectly good set of students to go to college.
> I just read uber is rolling out driverless rides.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You made me laugh.
Each time a industry unionizes corporations try to downplay the need of labor. Executives think that employees are just a nuisance and that the working class is ungrateful for their salaries. The reality is that the only ones adding value are the working class.
Unionize, let them fear us instead of mocking us and steal from us.
In the US, patient time is eroded by system/admin friction, I'm hoping that has entered public consciousness by now.
from colleagues in the UK: their headline demand is “pay restoration,” but the underlying grievances are much broader: when understaffing becomes normal operating procedure, every absence is a freaking emergency. nights and on-call work are intense enough already; broken sleep and persistent overload should not be normal too.
The AMA has taken protectionist positions before, including opposing expansion—fair criticism. But opposing expansion can also mean opposing inadequately funded or structured training. And, as the other commenter said—thank you—don’t physicians deserve to pool bargaining power like other workers?
My point is: it has more and more directly to do with patients than it may seem - being able to do the work properly, with enough time and capacity for the clinical judgement we've been trained for to be fully deployed... leads to better patient outcomes and safety.
Correct. "Collective bargaining" against society is called running a cartel. Having your cartel lobby the government to set the law to benefit it is called rent-seeking. They've caused massive damage to society, and limiting positions by quota is different from setting standards.
I can't even draw an "imagine if we limited... " comparison because limiting access to doctors is already close to the worst case, obviously destructive thing to do. Maybe food? If instead of subsidizing farming to ensure we always overgrow and don't have famines, we capped farming, ensuring famines?
> and, well, they’re frankly not spending enough time with each patient per appointment.
Many doctors would agree with you. They're under enormous pressure to work faster from both non-medical administrators and non-medical reimbursement decision makers.
My company, my insurance company, my pharmacy insurance company, the required health startup I have to use, my doctor and I all get to decide whether I can take a commonly prescribed medicine that i need. Theres way way too many parties in that decision. The ama isn't the problem that's driving wedges between my doctor and me.
I’m so excited for driverless cars, and I wonder how this will affect the shift towards services like Waymo. If the choice of whether to take Waymo vs Uber comes down to cost, unions seem like they would shift the usage towards Waymo. (or Waymo simply increases prices to match)
The economics of self driving taxis is still to be determined. Waymo right now costs significantly more than Uber and Lyft and service is extremely limited. And Google is still pouring billions into the division with no expectation of profit in the short term. A lot has to change before self driving taxis will seriously start to displace regular ones.
My experience is that while they are all priced based on demand, Waymo is often much cheaper during periods of low demand. I have benefitted from a few 50% off rides in the past month, so I was able to pay $5.50-$6.00 for rides that would be $20-30 across all the providers during high demand and for which Uber was quoting $13-18 at the time of those rides.
Presuming that paying fair wages drives up service price. Uber and Lyft may increase prices a bit, but there are other factors that affect customers willingness to pay which don’t change with increases in driver compensation. The companies can always choose to take slightly less profit to pay a fair wage, and they might make that choice if it’s less painful than the loss in paid rides due to a price increase.
Great news, although I just read uber is rolling out driverless rides.
Just as I support the AMA for doctors I support collective bargaining rights even for gig drivers.
Let's hope it makes a difference.
> Just as I support the AMA for doctors
Doctors pay has been increasing a lot and it has nothing to do with union. In fact they just do one thing, lobby to not allow a perfectly good set of students to go to college.
> I just read uber is rolling out driverless rides.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. You made me laugh.
Each time a industry unionizes corporations try to downplay the need of labor. Executives think that employees are just a nuisance and that the working class is ungrateful for their salaries. The reality is that the only ones adding value are the working class.
Unionize, let them fear us instead of mocking us and steal from us.
> Just as I support the AMA for doctors
Strong disagree: they’re the main entity responsible for limiting the available quantity of doctors/medical practitioners available,
and, well, they’re frankly not spending enough time with each patient per appointment.
Not something to glance over - it’s a complete mishandling of the only formula that matters to the patient.
In the US, patient time is eroded by system/admin friction, I'm hoping that has entered public consciousness by now.
from colleagues in the UK: their headline demand is “pay restoration,” but the underlying grievances are much broader: when understaffing becomes normal operating procedure, every absence is a freaking emergency. nights and on-call work are intense enough already; broken sleep and persistent overload should not be normal too.
The AMA has taken protectionist positions before, including opposing expansion—fair criticism. But opposing expansion can also mean opposing inadequately funded or structured training. And, as the other commenter said—thank you—don’t physicians deserve to pool bargaining power like other workers?
My point is: it has more and more directly to do with patients than it may seem - being able to do the work properly, with enough time and capacity for the clinical judgement we've been trained for to be fully deployed... leads to better patient outcomes and safety.
OK, doctors don't deserve collective bargaining rights?
I'm not defending their profession.
I'm drawing a parallel in rights.
And limiting entry is great for wages.
Flooding your profession with people lowers wages.
A drivers union would do the same if they could: create and raise standards.
Correct. "Collective bargaining" against society is called running a cartel. Having your cartel lobby the government to set the law to benefit it is called rent-seeking. They've caused massive damage to society, and limiting positions by quota is different from setting standards.
I can't even draw an "imagine if we limited... " comparison because limiting access to doctors is already close to the worst case, obviously destructive thing to do. Maybe food? If instead of subsidizing farming to ensure we always overgrow and don't have famines, we capped farming, ensuring famines?
Yes there need to be solidarity between members of unions otherwise it is just some feudal guild society.
> and, well, they’re frankly not spending enough time with each patient per appointment.
Many doctors would agree with you. They're under enormous pressure to work faster from both non-medical administrators and non-medical reimbursement decision makers.
Neither of those groups seem to be in a rush to buck the AMA workflows that lead to this.
My company, my insurance company, my pharmacy insurance company, the required health startup I have to use, my doctor and I all get to decide whether I can take a commonly prescribed medicine that i need. Theres way way too many parties in that decision. The ama isn't the problem that's driving wedges between my doctor and me.
I’m so excited for driverless cars, and I wonder how this will affect the shift towards services like Waymo. If the choice of whether to take Waymo vs Uber comes down to cost, unions seem like they would shift the usage towards Waymo. (or Waymo simply increases prices to match)
The economics of self driving taxis is still to be determined. Waymo right now costs significantly more than Uber and Lyft and service is extremely limited. And Google is still pouring billions into the division with no expectation of profit in the short term. A lot has to change before self driving taxis will seriously start to displace regular ones.
Waymo has taken significant market share from Lyft and Uber in San Francisco already:
https://underscoresf.com/in-san-francisco-waymo-has-now-best...
My experience is that while they are all priced based on demand, Waymo is often much cheaper during periods of low demand. I have benefitted from a few 50% off rides in the past month, so I was able to pay $5.50-$6.00 for rides that would be $20-30 across all the providers during high demand and for which Uber was quoting $13-18 at the time of those rides.
Presuming that paying fair wages drives up service price. Uber and Lyft may increase prices a bit, but there are other factors that affect customers willingness to pay which don’t change with increases in driver compensation. The companies can always choose to take slightly less profit to pay a fair wage, and they might make that choice if it’s less painful than the loss in paid rides due to a price increase.
Or they might signal supporting a fellow human. I preferentially but union made things because in general the workers are getting a bigger cut.
[dead]
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall of the Waymo offices when this news broke