Bratty Uber throws tantrum, threatens to cut off California unless judge does what it says in driver labor rights row Uber's CEO today threatened to suspend all of its dial-a-ride services in California should a judge not grant an emergency appeal to let it continue classifying its app's drivers as contract workers. Dara Khosrowshahi said in a telly interview that if the San Francisco Superior Court goes forward with its preliminary order …
Well I bet the whole of California are quaking in their boots.
Then again, “So I think that Uber will shut down for a while." suggests they might just sulk for a while and then finally bring their dodgy business practices and flagrant and wilful ignorance of standard working practices back ‘real soon now’ :-)
And the good people of California rejoiced. For the great benevolent and glorious taxi company returned. No longer would they have to use their own cars. Or walk. Or catch a bus. Or just phone a normal taxi company. Uber had anointed their lowly Lands with its godliness! Behold!!
Now bloody well be grateful and don’t upset them again. Ok?
When one looks at the financial end of their business model, it is a clone of the worse version of sharecropping.
In traditional sharecropping, the landlord fronts the money for owning the property & for planting the next crop, the sharecropper does the labor, and the landlord & sharecropper share in the proceeds of the crop sale. The goal is for both the landlord & sharecropper to make at least enough money to survive another season and this system has them co-invest in the crop, albeit in different "currencies", and so share the investment risk. In other words, they both have skin in the game.
The digital neo-sharecropper economy ah la Uber, is vastly more abusive to the "sharecropper" than in normal sharecropping. In the digital sharecropper economy, the "digital landlord" takes on zero risk and simply skims cash off the cash flow. The "digital landlord" thus makes money regardless of the profit & loss of the "digital sharecropper". The "digital sharecropper" takes on 100% of the risk both in terms of capital investment (owning & maintaining a car or property) and in terms of operating profit/loss, while the "digital landlord" has zero risk & can only make money.
The "digital landlord" also starts with the premise that they can flaunt all of the Public Safety & Labor Laws that the traditional Service Sector has to abide by. They only reluctantly abide by those laws when a gun is put to their heads.
So, in essence, you think that to be robbed by your choice of several robbers is an advantage?
From a very basic and simple accounting point of view, the calculation that Uber, Lyft, and similar
digital robber barons make is this:
Oh, let's see, you are a student, and you wanna make a few extra bucks, here you go, and since you
already have a car anyway, we owe you exactly nothing for the wear and tear that your car goes through, nothing for the gas, nothing for the insurance, nothing for license, repairs, oil, etc.
Alrighty then, for that trip of 12 miles, we charge say $15.00, we skim 20% - that's $3 bucks of the top,
and you get $12, minus certain fees in the fine print. So you make $11 or so.
But, if you think about it, then you know that the IRS (the equivalent of the beloved Brit Inland Revenue) allows 58 cents per mile as a 'standard cost per mile'. IRS is not exactly generous.
That cost is based on long run averages. So now do the math: 58 cents times 12 miles = $6.96 is your allowable cost deduction for that 12 miles. Now $11 less $6.96 = $4.04. So, there you are, you made $4.04 for that trip. Save up the $6.96 for gas,oil, repair, license, car payments, insurance, etc.
Yes, I know, for a new car, and for just a few trips here and there, and when you have nothing else to do, a few extra dollars are nice. But in the long run, the costs for using the car for someone else's business are starting to hit the pocket book, and you wonder if it's worth it. Oh, yes, since you have a smart-phone "anyway", that cost does not need to be reimbursed to you either. There goes another
$60 to $80 per month.
To me, Uber and Lyft is a greedy as the "multi level marketing schemes", where only the big boss makes the big money, and the rest get peanuts.
Now, if there is an accident, and you are not covered by "workers comp insurance", or you are out
of work, but you are not covered by "Unemployment insurance", then the true greed of Lyft and Uber
kicks you in the butt.
Thus, they are uncivilised, meanspirited, people-abusing companies, who try to talk people into a hardly at all profitable scheme via "fancy technology" and promises.
By comparison, if you pick up a hitch-hiker, who happens to stand by the road, asking if you could
give him a ride to the next town (since you are going there anyway), then you can certainly do that out of the goodness of your heart. But it is not a business model you can use to buy rent, food, medicine, clothing, etc. It does not work, just like selling combs and diet drinks door to door does not work. It's
a barely there existence. It's desperate and sad.
So, California is doing the right thing here, and only paid-off, bribed Republican business politicos will
agree with the way of Lyft and Uber.
Here in Austin, we tried to (very, very modestly) regulate Uber and Lyft. They left in a huff and ran crying to the Texas Legislature to make stop Austin from being so mean to them and the legislature complied. Bashing Austin is sport for them despite our being the capitol. I personally want to see Uber go down in flames.
In Germany you need a special driving license to drive commercially. Uber's drivers had to have this license in order to get insurance (a legal requirement), but Uber never informed their drivers of this and never checked to ensure they had the right license or the right insurance, so they were banned for a long time, even though they claimed that they were just contractors and they had no control over the drivers.
They are back in a limited fashion in a couple of cities, I believe.
Likewise, in South Africa any driver providing public transport requires a public drivers licence. The car's insurance also has to be different due to public liability. Uber handily does not check that drivers meet these requirements. It becomes a cat and mouse game between the city impounding cars and Uber paying the fines and release fees for the drivers.
From drivers to which I've spoken, they can no longer make a reasonable income driving. There's an over-supply of drivers. The more clever drivers are like existing tour operators which use Uber hails as introductions to potential customers.
Granted, Uber have something with the app and the user experience and frankly a bit baffled why established taxi companies haven't joined that model.
"Granted, Uber have something with the app and the user experience and frankly a bit baffled why established taxi companies haven't joined that model."
True. But then again, don't forget that running such a set up requires resources. On a global scale (and with additional, corresponding (3rd party) revenue streams) this might not be such a big issue. But for all those local/ city taxi firms, that might be a more significant load to carry. Then again, I have seen more companies in in various EU countries doing exactly what do suggest...
Also, you can't really do payment calculation over the app, or at least not automatic payment calculation.
You generally have to have a tested and certified meter in the taxi that uses time and distance travelled to calculate the fare. Ignoring that and using an app would be illegal.
Still, given that the app would need to offer more or less the same functionality regardless of region and range, taxi companies could use the same basis and backend, with maybe a bit of tailoring and skinning.
And there are taxi services that offer "any destination within x distance of city centre/train station for y Euros' for two or three ranges, fully compliant with current regulations, so it's well possible to offer a pre-calculated ride price.
At least one of my local taxi companies has done exactly that. The problem is that it is limited to my local taxi company. If I go to the towns next door, I need their taxi company app. Uber and Lyft's advantage there is of course that one app is usable no matter where you are.
I've probably used one taxi in the last 20 years, so I'm not the target audience these days. But when I was working in Frankfurt, I'd need taxis regularly.
Back then (2000/2001), at the airport, there was a big taxi rank.
At the hotel, there was usually a taxi standing around, if there wasn't I'd ask the concierge and he would call the taxi company and a couple of minutes later a Mercedes E Class would roll up.
And if I was at a bar or restaraunt, I'd ask the waiter to order me a taxi when I ordered the bill, if it wasn't within walking distance to the hotel or I couldn't get a bus, tram, underground to the station near the hotel.
They're headquartered here in Düsseldorf but after a burst of adverts in the spring it's gone reasonably quiet: demand fell off the cliff with the epidemic as all the trade fair and airline traffic disappeared. Not that it was hard to order a taxi with 99999 and 33333 being standard numbers since before I moved here.
But I believe the same people that use the equally financially dubious electro-scooters probably also have Uber on their phone: it's a party trick for going home as to who can order a car the fastest. Even if it can't do simple things like split billing. :-/
"dubious electro-scooters"
...which by now start littering the city everywhere. I would really have a perfect day if cities start gathering them up and taking them to the tip, like they used to do with the piles of discarded bicycles during my student days. And then send a bill to all these companies for "Entsorgung".
But more to your comment: I think Germany's push for minimum wages and against zero hour set ups and "self employed entrepreneur" cost shifting operations is also a factor there. If I'm informed correctly, this now also happens in other sectors there, e.g. Hermes parcel delivery, workers in construction, and Eastern EU truck drivers and shipping crews put on extortion contracts by (Dutch) logistic companies, travelling through/ working in Germany and not complying to local (labour) laws?
Oh yes, that German labour policy has allowed companies to circumventing legislation is shameful. It was the unwillingness of the CDU to apply the Entsendegesetz to meat processing that directly led to the minimum wage and the subsequent race to the bottom via imported sub-contractors: branch and regional based collective bargaining arguably provided better solutions for both employees and employers. (And animals and customers).
At some point we're also going to have to pay for the massive shortfall in benefits provision through the "mini-job" scheme.
Having worked in the industry, or at least supplied the industry for nearly a decade, I am all for eating less meat of a higher quality from local producers at a reasonable (for the supply chain) price that ensures local employment for local people.
There is something very wrong with the world when it is cheaper to transport something halfway around the world, whether it be electronics, cars, food, clothing, whatever, than to buy it from a local producer.
But we are so used to paying "under market rates" for everything that there would be an uproar, if we suddenly had to pay the real price for everything.
"There is something very wrong with the world when it is cheaper to transport something halfway around the world, whether it be electronics, cars, food, clothing, whatever, than to buy it from a local producer."
But sometimes it is worth it. Economies of scale, for starters. One big plant can be more efficient than lots of little ones. And what is the point of shipping raw materials around the world to several factories when you can send all the raw materials to one point and ship the finished products out - especially if some of the raw materials are not good things to store near large population centres but are not a problem when 'put together'... some of the chemicals in batteries for example.
Won't work in every circumstance, and you need to have some sort of contingency in case of accident/natural disaster/human stupidity, but not automatically a bad thing.
There is a certain amount of validity to you view, to mine as well.
I'm not saying we should just drop globalism and go back to feudalism or something, but local products, especially raw products, should be cheaper locally than importing them from the other side of the world.
That cheap item might be a bargain to us, but it has meant dozens or hundreds of people have received less than bugger all for their efforts to create that product and transport that product, if it is still cheaper after several thousand miles of road and sea travel than the "same" item coming from less than 20 miles away.
But if that place has a very low cost of living (such that "less than bugger all" actually gets them room and board), then you wonder why there's so much outsourcing, no matter how sweet the first world can offer things. At that point, it becomes cheaper to go abroad and just cheat (aka bribe) if necessary.
There is a certain amount of validity to you view, to mine as well.
I think you hit the nail right on the head there: the optimum most likely is somewhere in the middle. After all, another argument for that is continuity. As the (lacking) availability of pharmaceuticals and medical devices during the COVID developments have shown, there is a fatal flaw in the logistic model that converges to one/ very few production points.
Then again, you're also right on the cost side of things: the race to the bottom is something producers will keep chasing, while consumers don't give a flying about anything, as long as it doesn't touch their finances and life in any way. A perfect feedback loop that can only be broken by some ballsy, non-popular intervention (hmmm, suppose that rules out politicians).
Just back from the local farmers market so, of course, I agree with you. The problem in Germany, at least, is that policy and industry have focussed on producing to price to the detriment of everything else: animal welfare, environment (the cost to remove nitrates from ground water is going to be astronomical), employees. But this is also means that many families have become dependent on this system.
FWIW I can recommend the "Hintergrund" report on DLF on the meat processing industry and how it's affecting the whole of Europe. It's in German so probably only of interest to those of us who live here, but it is a real, er, ear-opener.
The meat processing industry is also being shaken up, after the COVID-19 outbreaks at Westfleisch and Tönnies happened (and Amazon uses the same set-up for its warehouse workers, at least during peak seasonal activities).
They use "contract workers" over a third-party company that provides cheap workers from other (poorer) countries. They are shipped to the factory and put up in sub-standard housing, often several people to a room/bed (i.e. you sleep and when you go to work, the person coming off shift sleeps). This packed housing situation, plus packed canteens and the cool atmosphere in a slaughter house and meat processing plant mean that it is ideal conditions for COVID-19 to spread.
This has been going on for a long time - I used to work supplying software to the food industry, including slaughter lines and meat processing. There are some meat processors that do a "good" job, they only employ skilled labour from the local area, but most can't afford that any more. The pressure to reduce costs means that they can't pay enough to employees to live in their own accommodation.
The discounters are partly at fault, but we consumers as well. We have become used to ever cheaper (relationally) prices for things like meat and eggs and the discounters put pressure on the processors, who cut costs and push the problem onto the farmers and handlers, so that only the discounters and the biggest slaughter houses and meat processors make good money, and the latter only because they have to cut corners.
There have been initiatives to improve the quality of the meat, which is generally a fairly high standard, at least in terms of product hygiene and traceability. But the worker situation has been glossed over for a long time, it is the food industry's dirty secret (and not just the food industry, many service industries have similar practices).
Until consumers are willing to pay a fare amount for their food (especially meat), things won't improve. We all hold act horrified at the situation of the workers, but I suspect a majority of people wouldn't be happy if their food bill suddenly went up 10% - 20% to cover reforms that would see improved product quality and proper wages.
We haven't bought meat products from the discounters for several years and are willing to eat less meat, but better quality meat that comes from local producers at higher prices.
Overall, it's a sad affair when a business cannot survive unless it pays its workers a sub-standard wage, without any benefits, without health insurance, without retirement or social security etc.
What's the point of work, when you cannot survive by working?
That is also true in USA. A commercial driver license is required to drive anything for pay, the only exception being agricultural equipment. Also, the commercial insurance is required. I don't know if Uber informed their drivers or not, but I am sure the California magistrates know this. But they don't want to ban Uber, they want to tax them more. Most of the drivers, I am sure, want to remain contractors, because of the tax laws. They buy their own cars, fuel, and insurance, etc. As a business, these expenses are all deductible. As employees, the deductions for employee expenses are much more limited. So California will collect more taxes, from both Uber and the drivers, if the drivers are deemed employees.
This isn't about protecting workers. It is about collecting more tax revenue. Thankfully, it will be decided by the people and not left up to the government that stands to gain from making drivers employees against their will. If the people want to force Uber out, then so be it.
But didn't several local "ride app" companies spring up to fill that vacuum? That's Uber's real problem, they have no advantage other than people already having the Uber app installed so when they travel somewhere else it is easier than finding the local alternative. That would be easily fixed by someone creating an app that connects you to the local options depending on where you are...
> "But didn't several local "ride app" companies spring up to fill that vacuum?"
Yes. When I was there in 2018, I only used one that was called "Ride Austin" (I think).
Even then, it was only because the public transport stops running after dinner, and doesn't reach nearby towns.
And sadly, Ride Austin (a non-profit) just folded due to the pandemic. The drivers loved working for them - they made more money than with Uber or Lyft, and the company had a lot of "firsts", like allowing female passengers to request female drivers. So sad to see them gone.
"That would be easily fixed by someone creating an app that connects you to the local options depending on where you are..."
If only mobile phones had some sort self-location facility that could link to the Google Play Store and suggest suitable local apps for those apps that are localised. Taxi apps, store finders apps etc could all benefit.
Hat tip to London Reconnections for their coverage of Uber in the UK.
@A Non e-mouse
That is an excellent read, it looks as though British law has the measure of Uber too, particularly with the Duck Test.
Let's face it, they provide the client to the driver, they are the collectors of the fare and they subsequently pay the driver, sounds like an employer to me.
I have worked as a mini-cab driver in the '80s, in those days a driver would rent a radio from a company (£40 a week) and pick up fares who had called in to the office for a ride, the fare paid the driver who was self employed and paid his own way with regard to insurance, car maintenance etc.
Where Uber falls down is they want to handle the money first and dole it out to the drivers and have control, if they have control they are the employer, if instead they just sold a subscription to the app for a fixed period ( in a similar way to renting a radio) so that drivers and rides can connect, they would have far less overhead and would not be an employer in any way. Might still have to pay VAT in the UK though.
"If the court does not reconsider, then in California it is hard to think that we will be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly," he said. "So I think that Uber will shut down for a while."
Empty threat, methinks. It would cost the ride-share-flingers much more money to un-ass California than it would for them to simply give the serfs what they're due.
That said, should the fat-asses actually follow through in cutting off their noses to spite their faces, we need only remember the immortal words of one Elmer Fudd: "Good widdance to baaaad wubbish!"
My daily newspaper (yes, I read one -- its all about paying journalists) told me recently that Uber ridership had fallen off a cliff.
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-08-06/ubers-revenues-tumble-as-food-delivery-outpaces-ride-hailing
They're currently make more money from food deliveries than from rides.
Uber are throwing a wobbler because they resent us classifying drivers as 'employees' rather than 'contractors'. Being employees guves the drivers some standing with regard to unemployment insurance and working hours regulation, also the requirement to chip in for benefits like health insurance. This naturally screws up their business model so they're doing what they can to fix this. One way is to put an 'initiative' on the ballot in November (this is a form of direct democracy where voters can propose and pass their own laws -- actually its now typically 'industry groups and their consultants' that do this but that's not how its supposed to work). I don't know if this initiative is getting any traction.
"Another doomed business model as it is based on the restaurants not charging more for the food but paying delivery costs."
Are you sure about that? Most places I know place a premium if you select delivery: though higher item prices and/or a mandatory delivery fee. Most of the "free delivery" ads are time-limited, simply meant to increase traffic volume; don't expect them to last.
Personally, I could never understand why someone absolutely MUST have a hot pizza delivered from a 7-Eleven at 2 in the morning. I was always taught, "Can't cook, can't eat."
I have rarely used Uber, but when I have the drivers all seemed to like the independence of being a contractor rather than an employee. One example was a retiree who just liked meeting new people, but wanted to have the flexibility to determine his own hours. Several other drivers said the same thing.
I just don't know if that is a representative sample. If this was a full time job for them, then I doubt the drivers would be happy with not having the benefits of employees, particularly considering the low wages. For students and retirees working part time, like I have had for drivers, the freedom of schedule may be more important. I have no idea how many Uber drivers fall into each category.
I'm not conflicted at all. Nothing says their employees have to be full time salaried employees. Nothing says they have to have fixed schedules.California is just saying that they are employees under the ancient legal principle of "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.
When I say flexible, I mean a totally flexible schedule, i.e., you choose how much and when to work on a weekly basis. Like to do things in the summer, take the summer off. Break between semesters, work full time. This isn't my preference, but then I'm not an Uber driver. But every driver I talked to (5 total) has said the same thing when I have asked them how they liked working for Uber. Again, I have no idea whether that is typical of other drivers, but I hesitate to "help" people who don't want helped. YMMV
That is good - I've never seen that kind of flexible in the US, but I'm not an expert on employment. Every driver I talked to said, in one way or the other, that their favorite thing about Uber was being their own boss, with the exception of the retiree who just liked meeting new people (he was a former executive at a world famous maker of women's fashion - think about a former queen of England with a secret).
Maybe this is a generational thing, but I've never liked the concept of protecting people when they don't want protected. This probably started in college, where the concept of "in loco parentis" meant that freshman and sophomore female students had curfews to "protect them", which they absolutely hated. Evidently male students didn't need protected, and females who didn't go to college also didn't have to worry about curfews. This was further ingrained by other similar things. For example, 18 - 20 years old could go to war and get their ass shot off in Vietnam, but they couldn't drink alcohol - it was too dangerous. As a result, if Uber drivers are happy being contractors (which again, I don't know for sure), then I'm not in a rush to "protect them" by making them employees.
Obviously you may disagree, and that is fine.
Maybe this is a generational thing, but I've never liked the concept of protecting people when they don't want protected.
I think different legal frames and cultural backgrounds lead to some misunderstanding here.
In EU the issues with Uber have little to do with unwanted protection. Fact of the matter is that Uber tries to dodge their legal obligations because it's advantageous for them financially. That this works in the US is possible because there are different/ no employer legal obligations here with regard to for example health insurance or ensuring other (employer) social contributions (e.g pension payments, disability).
Again, we can argue whether this is about protection, but that discussion is cut short because of the simple fact that it's the law, whether you like it or not. Hence, non-compliance is illegal, and, as Uber now finds, trying to outsmart it troublesome.
I'm afraid that, as we find frequently, it isn't so much about the individual (your Uber drivers are happy being contractors), but more about somebody convincing you of that point because it serves their (bigger) purpose... As you mention yourself with your (very correct) Vietnam point...
Of course there are differences in legal obligation. For example, in the US an employer does not have to offer a retirement plan. But there is a caveat. If they DO offer a retirement plan, then they are legally obliged to offer it to all employees, not just those in the ivory tower. This is the same for the other things, health insurance, disability insurance, etc.
As a contractor, the driver is operating a business, independent from Uber. As you have pointed out, US law favors business. For example, tax deductions available to businesses are available to the drivers. I can certainly see why drivers would want to remain contractors. They make more money, or better to say they pay less taxes and so keep more of what they make. It's a fundamental difference in philosophy. The contractor is choosing to be self-reliant and manage his or her own money and affairs. The employee takes home less cash, offering up the remainder to the company and big brother with the expectation that they will manage it for his or her benefit.
You do understand the difference between protecting you from yourself and protecting others from your actions I assume? That face mask, for example, is probably not going to protect you unless it is N95 or equivalent, but it will protect others from you. Similarly, speeding is a danger to other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc.So no, I'm not against face masks (I have worn them three times today already) and I actually rarely speed. But when the government starts makes laws and regulations for your benefit, even though you don't want the "benefit", it becomes a much graying area. As I said repeated, I don't know how Uber drivers in general feel, but the limited number I talked to liked being there own boss.
Yes. As a student, I worked for a local supermarket and I informed them of my schedule, when I would be available for work and they planned me in for shifts that passed to the time I could work. In the holidays, I could work more shifts and earn more money, when it came up to exams, I would work fewer hours and earn less money.
"I've worked with employees with that much flexibility. They'd tell us when they were available and when they weren't. We offered work, they took it or didn't. They were all employees with full rights."
That sounds like a zero hours contract, which can be great for some people with a good employer. But we already know how that system is being abused by other employers. Sadly, no matter what kind of flexibility is introduced to help people, there will be big money grubbers who will abuse it.
I have asked them how they liked working for Uber
The thing is: Uber keeps on saying the drivers don't work for Uber. Uber's business model is to use casual labour to undercut the market. Your anecdotal evidence says a lot about the area you live in and might point to the kind of market Uber is ostensibly addressing – underserved areas where it makes no financial sense to offer a regular taxi service. In such cases Uber is creating new business and not taking it away existing business. But this is only a tiny part of the market.
The problem with taxis in America is restrictive practice: taxi licences are artificially restricted to the benefit of incumbents and to the detriment of customers and new drivers. But this can be solved fairly easily by adjusting the regulations.
How do you do anything other than limit the number of vehicles when a place like Manhattan is pretty much built in every direction including up. Not to mention this is New York State's cash cow with LOTS of deep wallets with connections up to Albany.
IOW, no matter how you try to limit things, even with the status quo of limiting medallions, you're going to get a fight. A long, protracted, and expensive fight against well-heeled adversaries. Put it this way. And Manhattan has lots of experience with these kinds of land fights, being one of the focal points of the infamous Highway Revolts. Not even the fabled Robert Moses could beat Manhattan's influence.
"When I say flexible, I mean a totally flexible schedule, i.e., you choose how much and when to work on a weekly basis."
Not sure why you are getting so many downvotes because this is how Uber and their ilk marketed themselves in the early days and is pretty much how they operated when "ride share" was their stated aim. Since then, they have pretty much evolved into a standard Taxi company and are no longer what they claimed they were at the beginning. Clearly they have at least two classes of drivers. Those who want to contract a few hours here and there to supplement an existing income and those who see it as a full time job.
For those who may have forgotten, the original stated aim of Uber was pair up drivers going from A to B at X'o'clock with others wanting to go the same route. It wasn't about people making a living doing that randomly driving around town. That original business plan was a great idea because it had the potential to reduce traffic. The current model has just put more and more Taxis on on the road.
I can understand why you are conflicted. Its a matter of free choice, right? A driver wants to work flexibly and a company wants a work to work flexibly so why not?
Why not is because its a race to the bottom. It there are employment laws and one company is allowed to dodge them and, by doing so making more money for shareholders, the one following the law will likely have to fold or, also, dodge the employment laws. Where does it stop?
Since this is an IT site, maybe its worth pointing out that computer science has a branch of game theory (you know, prisoner's dilimma and all that) called Mechanism Design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design). Among other things, it studies game strategies that are rational from the perspective of the players of the game but which are detrimental to the wider society in which the game is played. There are countless examples.
The behaviour by Uber and Lyft are examples of this problem. From their perspective offering flexible work terms to self-employed contractors is rational. However, from the perspective of the society in which Uber and Lyft operate it is not appropriate. After all, where does it end? I no longer have small children but if I did maybe I could offer chimney cleaning services as an inducement to get fares.
California and UK (amongst others) have decided it ends with all companies respecting employment laws. If Uber does not want to respect that requirement they do not have to operate in those jurisdictions. It is true that as a result, the cost of get a ride it likely to increase, that rider will be required to pay more and that some drivers will need to find alternative employment. But this is a choice jurisdictions make: either riders will pay more or they will find an alternative form of transportation if hailing a taxi becomes more expensive.
It's not at all a simple issue. The right to be in business - and sub-contracting is one way of running a business - is something that I think should be protected against the predations of the likes of HMRC. OTOH, back in the days when I was on the PCG's consultative committee we were concerned about forced incorporation of low paid workers.
It's something that needs to be properly addressed by legislators.
The rules they use to classify whether a person is an employee or a sub-contractor make perfect sense and Uber fails on every one of them.
It still boggles the mind how Uber is still allowed to run a business after its many dubious actions but I chalk that up to the many dirty politicians that accept "campaign donations" to turn a blind eye.
Frank Herbert's God Emperor of Dune always comes to mind when I think of US politics:
"There are only two main sins, Duncan, both punishable by death. The first, attempting to corrupt a public official and the second corruption by a public official."
I don't have the exact quote in front of me, so it might be slightly paraphrased.
If you don't like that one, how about this article which directly quotes the Lyft president. This was the initial article I had seen, but the LA Times is usually a somewhat more reliable source, or at least they used to be before they were sold.
https://www.businessinsider.com/lyft-president-threatens-california-shut-down-over-driver-status-ruling-2020-8
Is the Judge being threatened? Surely Uber are merely saying, "If you rule that we must not continue to operate with our current practices and conditions then we will cease operating with our current practices and conditions."
I'd have hoped the Judge would welcome that acceptance of the ruling.
"Is the Judge being threatened?"
In effect. yes. Uber are attempting to build outrage in their users who will direct it at the judge in attempt to get the ruling overturned. They tried this in London too and the wheels of justice ground on as usual while Uber were forced off the road for the duration. There were a few outraged tweets from Uber users wailing about how they'd get around town which amounted to nothing because there are so many alternatives anyway,
I could understand Uber asking for a waiver if they were unintentionally hit by a law directed at another type of business, like a food bank or convenience store having problems complying with a law that was really aimed at supermarkets.
However, Uber is at the front of this contractor vs. Employee problem. You cant do more than anyone to create a problem and then expect a personal reprieve from the solution. So Uber, just stop your whining and obfuscation. If the voters hand you a get out of jail in November, that's up to them. Until then, stop the tantrums.
I have massive issues with Uber and their ilk calling their business model "ride sharing". Ride sharing is when you and a workmate live in the same area and share costs to get to work (for example). You both start in the same general area and want to get to the same general area in one vehicle.
If a driver is being sent to a location they would otherwise have no reason to travel to, to pick up a person and transport them to another location they would otherwise have no reason to travel to, that is not ride sharing. They are a taxi/minicab service.
the "sharing" as we see it in 2020, is a cancer that has evolved from the original, brilliant idea of "sharing", I remember came up about 20 years ago. I remember that sense of quiet satisfaction, when reading how internet could now be used for cool and genuinely useful things in micro-scale, like people car-pooling or staying, for holidays, in other people homes. I know it's sounds (embarrassingly) like a crude commie, high-pitched scream, but what started this cancer was the usual suspect: hey, and why don't we make some money out of this idea, eh?! Cool bro, it works, so how about we make more, more, MORE money, and fuck those loser-moaners and their ethics shit.
btw, zero-fucking hour gig-economy runs in exactly by the same "spirit", i.e. moi first and fuck the rest.
Ride sharing, even kind of commercial, was quite in fashion in Germany even 30 years ago. If you wanted to go from A to B over a 250 mile distance, you would call a company to either tell them that you had space for a paying passenger, or you called them that you were looking for a driver.
And it was indeed rude sharing, two people wanting to go from A to B, and one having a car. Fares were low, so the driver just saved a lot of petrol money but didn’t make any money.
"Fares were low, so the driver just saved a lot of petrol money but didn’t make any money."
Yes, that works because I'd guess the law is similar in Germany as it is in the UK. You can give someone a lift and they can contribute towards your costs, but once a profit element creeps in, you need business insurance as a driver.
"Either give us our way, or we'll take our ball home in a huff and cut the nose of revenue stream from our own faces."
Funny how these "new technology" companies all seem to think they're not subject to legal oversight because of some creative phrasing about how they make their money. Uber is a poorly regulated cab company; any rights afforded to cabbies should be afforded to Uber drivers. "Common" (though extremely rare) sense dictates that.
But whip out the magic word "service platform" and you're supposed to be able to abdicate all your responsibilities because people "choose" to use your platform. That argument doesn't seem to have allowed the tobacco companies to escape culpability, nor the insurance companies, nor the banks, nor a host of others.
Yep. Those massive "new technology" egos are due for some major bruising and crushing in the near future as they're reminded of what this little thing called "the law" says about their "business model." :)
Whether it is Uber or AirBNB or any of those "disrupting" platforms: they make money because they claim that normal rules do not apply to them. And instead of sticking to the rules, they are hailed as being new, innovative or cheaper.
We seem to forget that there was a reason for most of those rules. For example: next time you're in ann airbnb, check the fire escape. And whether you agree with the reasons and the rules or not: being innovative is not a reason to be above the law.
It is bizarre, that normal taxis should comply to quite a lot of regulations, which are more or less actively enforced, but the authorities leave it up to exploited serfs to complain in civil cases against a big company with expensive lawyers when the company is a "innovative platform". It is on the other hand nice to see that even in spite of their expensive lawyers, these locust-companies get laughed at by the judges.
I can see why people leaving California are the money makers. People dont have to work for Uber, they choose to. People dont have to ride with Uber, they choose to. People dont have to invest in Uber, they choose to.
Where taxi services had taken the customer for granted and in some places put up such heavy restrictions to new entrants that they thought they were untouchable, Uber and the likes came and wiped the smile off their faces. This is literally an argument that people should be forced to pay more for their taxi transport.
Taxi firms are required BY LAW to maintain standards in such inconsequential matters as drivers being licenced to drive their vehicle, valid taxes and insurances paid up, vehicles being safe to be on the road, etc. These cost money.
And on the subject of 'heavy restrictions to new entrants', I automatically think of the requirement for all London black cab drivers to complete 'the knowledge', to prove they know the quickest/safest/best route between any two points in the city. This might seem like an irrelevance in these days of satnavs and online maps, but it does mean that if a driver is taking the piss and making journeys longer and more expensive than they should, they can easily be caught out because "I didn't know about that route" can't be used as an excuse...
@AC
Those would be good examples of the regulatory protections for taxi services which allowed them to assume a captive market. And by reducing the cost of travel and improving the standard of service (technology particularly) Uber and the like have improved the situation for people.
Of course people wanting to pay more can choose to pay for ordinary taxi services (which do seem to be improving thanks to competition) but by regulating out competition the taxi service will only stale again.
At the moment, drivers can pick their shifts, and if not busy, won't make minimum wage.
That was was of the arguments during the UK London court case, the drivers weren't working at the busiest times, therefore technically being paid less than minimum wage, but that was down to driver choice. They lost that argument, but I'm still not 100% why.
If Uber are classed as employer, then I'm guessing it will be down to Uber to dictate when you work. So that will be every Friday or Saturday unless you want to use your holiday pay.
They won't pay you for sitting around during non busy times.
These arguments aren't going away any time soon. Where I live Uber has forced the other taxi companies to offer competitive rates. So ringing the local taxi company no longer costs you triple. So I guess there is that.
> That was was of the arguments during the UK London court case, the drivers weren't working at the busiest times, therefore technically being paid less than minimum wage, but that was down to driver choice. They lost that argument, but I'm still not 100% why.
After determining the drivers were employees, the tribunal went on to look at when minimum wage applied. They said
"We have already stated our view that a driver is 'working' ... when he has the App switched on, is in the territory in which he is licensed to use the App, and is ready and willing to accept trips. .... To be confident of satisfying demand, [Uber] must, at any one time, have some of its drivers carrying passengers and some waiting for the opportunity to do so. Being available is an essential part of the service which the driver renders to Uber. If we may borrow another wellknown literary line: They also serve who only stand and wait."
Ah, but even on commission, if you're an employee you're entitled to minimum hourly wage. This has already been tested in the courts over waiters/waitresses and tips, if the tips don't come up to minimum wage, the employer has to make up the difference to pay the employee minimum wage.
Tips and commissions are entirely different things. Instead of waiters (and tips), think sales reps who have to close a deal to get a cut of the proceeds. These are strict commission-only jobs and have themselves been upheld in the courts. This is perhaps Uber's attempted angle: working strictly on commission (not condoning it, simply noticing where it's going).
Not really sure how UK operates and I note UberEats is not mentioned but we only get paid if we do a delivery. In my two years of fulltime delivery I have been idle an average of three minutes a day. Why these share drivers are idle so much is a puzzler. So it appears they want to work when there is no work and get paid for it.
Nice scam if you can get it.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
First, Fk Uber. But the solution to this isn't employee or contractor per se - that's just a tax grab. Deregulate the entire 'for hire' landscape where it concerns fares. Publish MAX fares which are what they are today and posted on every legitimate taxi. Every car must be equipped with an official GPS device with a running meter display - plenty of commercial solutions available. The taxi regulator could publish an app that would do the same. If Uber wants to commit to a lower 'fixed' rate at time of booking that's their prerogative. And so can the regulated taxi companies.
Every registered driver must be charged a flat-rate 'medallion' fee calculated based on distance traveled while under fare. They must also be charged commercial insurance rates per mile. Uber et. al. already collect VIN of all vehicles and DL of every participant. This will be reported to the DMV in near realtime - ie the previous day's active bookings are reported by VIN. As a driver you can supply proof of commercial liability insurance to the DMV and brand your title as 'for-hire'. You can also bulk-pay your medallion fee to the DMV, say $5000/yr, non-refundable. People who want to make gypsy taxi their source of income will elect to do the needful for some savings in fees. Casual drivers will pay the per mile rates out of convenience.
This makes the playing field completely level and will probably kill 90% of the 'casual' drivers and good riddance.
I don't think so. Part of the game is finding ways to get around the regulations, and where there's a regulation, there's someone willing to find a loophole to abuse, and there's ALWAYS a loophole to abuse. After all, how many of those dreaded "global turnover" fines have governments actually been able to collect in full?
I drive for UberEats because at 76 I can't find other employment and after 55 years of employers directing my schedule I'd rather set my own. However, all of you in your wisdom again want to force me to adhere to your concept of a job. I agree all workers should have a fall back such as sick pay and unemployment but it should be an optional benefit. Not one that you in your infinite wisdom force on us.
Under AB5 hundreds of thousands of contract workers have lost income sources. Other industries like truckers got exempted. Their logic was as convoluted as Uber's but being they have more clout the class of workers is still working.
Due to your interference my son, also an Eats driver, and I will no longer be able to pay our bills if Uber leaves California. MANY thousands will be in the same straits but not be included in the unemployment figures. YOU scweamed and scweamed until you brought that terrible Uber under your thumb and I and my son will pay the consequences. I hope you are pleased.
PS I am not even going into how little Americsns know about American employers and the lack of benefits Uber is being prosecuted for. The ignorance is appalling. But these corporations can skate by using temp workers and no makes a sound.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
