Uber Rush(blog.uber.com)
blog.uber.com
Uber Rush
http://blog.uber.com/RUSH
11 comments
I'm not sure that this is necessarily a terrible thing. In some cases, its just a way of avoiding employment laws. In others, it is a genuine fragmentation of a big business into many units. Independent contractors can benefit from this and the whole system can become more efficient.
If a new technology is involved, the latter is more likely. Technology can reduce transaction costs and replace firms with markets made up of smaller firms.
A really interesting and accessible (but usually misinterpreted via soundbite) famous work in economics is ' The Nature of the Firm' by Ronald Coase. I think this is the best framework for understanding the key dynamic here. Whether employees or independent "contractors" make economic sense is most influenced by transaction costs.
For example if the cost of hiring, negotiating and communicating with a graphic designer every time was low enough, there would be no reason for a company to hire a graphic designer. But realistically if you add up all the things an in house designer does (including making the decisions about what needs to be done) in a month and try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher. As things stand now, I think that a company contracting over 10-20 hrs per week of design work is probably better off with a full time employee. The main reason is transaction costs.
Technology can cause big changes in transaction costs. What was previously done by companies can be done by markets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
If a new technology is involved, the latter is more likely. Technology can reduce transaction costs and replace firms with markets made up of smaller firms.
A really interesting and accessible (but usually misinterpreted via soundbite) famous work in economics is ' The Nature of the Firm' by Ronald Coase. I think this is the best framework for understanding the key dynamic here. Whether employees or independent "contractors" make economic sense is most influenced by transaction costs.
For example if the cost of hiring, negotiating and communicating with a graphic designer every time was low enough, there would be no reason for a company to hire a graphic designer. But realistically if you add up all the things an in house designer does (including making the decisions about what needs to be done) in a month and try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher. As things stand now, I think that a company contracting over 10-20 hrs per week of design work is probably better off with a full time employee. The main reason is transaction costs.
Technology can cause big changes in transaction costs. What was previously done by companies can be done by markets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
>> try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher
A lot of times you can get things done with a freelancer for cheaper. The cost comes A) when you want to change things and have to start over, potentially with someone who has never worked on your project before and B) you don't have someone thinking about your project design/code/product full time, so you are unable to push improvements or respond to issues continuously.
To grow past a certain point, you need someone who has a financial incentive to put your project at the front of their mind - something employment is great at.
For the Uber v. employee model - employees would give Uber better control over supply, independent contractors get more control over when they can work (hence the number of people I know who drive Uber/Lyft/Sidecar a few weekends a month just to pay their SF parking costs).
A lot of times you can get things done with a freelancer for cheaper. The cost comes A) when you want to change things and have to start over, potentially with someone who has never worked on your project before and B) you don't have someone thinking about your project design/code/product full time, so you are unable to push improvements or respond to issues continuously.
To grow past a certain point, you need someone who has a financial incentive to put your project at the front of their mind - something employment is great at.
For the Uber v. employee model - employees would give Uber better control over supply, independent contractors get more control over when they can work (hence the number of people I know who drive Uber/Lyft/Sidecar a few weekends a month just to pay their SF parking costs).
That may be true in for a single founder at the bootstrap phase. For a company where the founder/boss doesn't directly make all the decisions finding, negotiating, getting approval and avoiding the many pitfalls of working with freelancers transaction costs are very high. Interestingly, very large firms can get to the point where inefficiencies from centralization exceed the cost of transactions. IE, armies of "graphic designers" producing a trickle substandard work at massive expense.
I really do suggest you look at Coase' paper. To me, its a great example of what economics can do. It's very accessible. The logic goes:
We know competitive markets are better than centralized ones at a national level. So, why are individual firms so large, centralized and horizontal? Wouldn't Microsoft or Walmart benefit from being many small independent units freely transacting with each other? Why do we even have firms? Why don't individuals just sell their service to each other?
The answer is usually "economies of scale" which is a semi-tautological answer. Why does "scale" need to be achieved by a a firm. A market can have scale too. Horizontal scale (eg a company with its own IT department) actually prevents the usual examples of economies of scale from occurring.
The paper argues (in my opinion very convincingly) that "transaction costs" are the main reason that firms exist. Transaction costs are responsible for horizontal companies. The enormous level of inefficiency caused by the centralization of firms (think East vs West Germany) needs to be offset by even more enormous transaction coss.
One difference that happens when you internalize this point is that you can imagine a lot of slack existing ins systems like this. Hours worked is one example (but not the only one). It's possible that the deliver guy will earn more in fewer hours, Uber will earn more than the parcel deliver companies and parcel delivery will become cheaper and better all drawing from this pool of wasted potential. It's a very big pool.
I really do suggest you look at Coase' paper. To me, its a great example of what economics can do. It's very accessible. The logic goes:
We know competitive markets are better than centralized ones at a national level. So, why are individual firms so large, centralized and horizontal? Wouldn't Microsoft or Walmart benefit from being many small independent units freely transacting with each other? Why do we even have firms? Why don't individuals just sell their service to each other?
The answer is usually "economies of scale" which is a semi-tautological answer. Why does "scale" need to be achieved by a a firm. A market can have scale too. Horizontal scale (eg a company with its own IT department) actually prevents the usual examples of economies of scale from occurring.
The paper argues (in my opinion very convincingly) that "transaction costs" are the main reason that firms exist. Transaction costs are responsible for horizontal companies. The enormous level of inefficiency caused by the centralization of firms (think East vs West Germany) needs to be offset by even more enormous transaction coss.
One difference that happens when you internalize this point is that you can imagine a lot of slack existing ins systems like this. Hours worked is one example (but not the only one). It's possible that the deliver guy will earn more in fewer hours, Uber will earn more than the parcel deliver companies and parcel delivery will become cheaper and better all drawing from this pool of wasted potential. It's a very big pool.
I think we agree substantially. I totally agree that to grow, freelancers are not the way to go. I was simply pointing out that there are some advantages to both (freelancers may be very situation dependent), and that both companies and workers should be free to choose which of the two models makes most sense to them.
Isn't being an employee unnecessary bureaucracy for a messenger service? If anything, I think Uber is doing a great service here to all parties involved by connecting supply and demand in a low-friction way.
Yes, it's not new, & yes Uber is doing well in connecting supply & demand with a great UX.
For Uber to be worth its high hype & valuation, it's going to essentially expand these types non-employee situations. That's why I'm "mixed" feeling about this, as I like great UX, smooth marketplaces, & know many people who want part-time work, not full time.
But, I also know many folks who had "decent jobs" (nothing special, but they can raise a family) driving UPS trucks or other things like that.
For Uber to be worth its high hype & valuation, it's going to essentially expand these types non-employee situations. That's why I'm "mixed" feeling about this, as I like great UX, smooth marketplaces, & know many people who want part-time work, not full time.
But, I also know many folks who had "decent jobs" (nothing special, but they can raise a family) driving UPS trucks or other things like that.
I think it is more than just connecting supply and demand with a great UX. The UX is actually creating demand. With taxis, Uber has created a whole new market of people who use uber but didn't use taxies before. I see a similar thing happening with couriering.
There are numerous people and professions who intentionally remain independent contractors (my father is one), rather than becoming an at-will employee. Each party should have a choice: the worker about whether he joins a company as an employee (and gets the benefits and "security") or remain a contractor (and remove the cap on income and have more control over their work), and the company about whether they'd like to offer benefits and "security" as a method to attract the best talent, or if they'd like to operate with independent contractors (which generally will mean more work finding them, managing them, and maintaining quality).\
Really, it should basically be the choice between being a freelancer or an employee, and the choice between hiring an engineer/designer or just one off freelancers.
Really, it should basically be the choice between being a freelancer or an employee, and the choice between hiring an engineer/designer or just one off freelancers.
You are assuming that this is a situation where a contractor is very similar to an employee. These only really exist as employers try to avoid employment laws. This is an employee, not a firm in the context of that paper.
A "real" contractor negotiates rates regularly and with different pricing models, takes work from multiple contractors, pay for their own tools etc. In some cases you genuinely have a "firm" with one client but that's rare.
The question is are these uber contractors contractors in this sense? I think they are.
A "real" contractor negotiates rates regularly and with different pricing models, takes work from multiple contractors, pay for their own tools etc. In some cases you genuinely have a "firm" with one client but that's rare.
The question is are these uber contractors contractors in this sense? I think they are.
I didn't assume that this was similar to being an employee. I'm saying that people do make the conscious choice to be contractors over being an employee (this is empirically true, and you just named a few reasons why one might). I think Uber is absolutely a contractor model - the drivers buy their own tools (car), experiment with pricing (can work with any car sharing company, can move to areas with more demand), and take work from all the carsharing companies.
OK I misunderstood.
The "social contract" is a religious non-proven abstraction. There was never any social contract anywhere. And even if there was, it does not bind you or me in any way. And even if it could, we could impose our own versions of a social contract on each other making it irrelevant.
The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.
The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.
Yes, the "social contract" is a very vague term indeed, & has been applied in bad ways in the past.
Here, I'm applying that there is social give & take & expectations/norms throughout our society. Yes, any social norm/contract/expectation is, by definition, constraining/conservative & thus counter to any progress/disruption.
These are not absolutes, as any difficult moral argument is usually balancing competing, legitimate concerns.
We do have an American social "contract" that is eroding: Things like "If you're born poor, and good in school, study hard, work hard your whole life, stay clean, then you have a great chance of getting out of poverty".
Here, I'm applying that there is social give & take & expectations/norms throughout our society. Yes, any social norm/contract/expectation is, by definition, constraining/conservative & thus counter to any progress/disruption.
These are not absolutes, as any difficult moral argument is usually balancing competing, legitimate concerns.
We do have an American social "contract" that is eroding: Things like "If you're born poor, and good in school, study hard, work hard your whole life, stay clean, then you have a great chance of getting out of poverty".
The most amusing part about the fictitious 'social' contract is that its proponents are loathe to respect ACTUALLY SIGNED contracts.
My understanding is that this is how the bike messenger industry has been for a while?
One aspect that Uber seems to have over-looked is that bike messengers traditionally rely on a network of relations, and commitment to the job -- it’s not a very gratifying job, therefore very low chances of finding another employment, legal or not, are qualifications. This allows the dispatcher to hire anyone with a pulse and calves, but trust some more and have them handle the occasional key delivery.
An truly Uber-like equivalent for parcels might be problematic. Imagine a couple of company shills, posing as a putative messengers, near your competitors’ headquarters.
An truly Uber-like equivalent for parcels might be problematic. Imagine a couple of company shills, posing as a putative messengers, near your competitors’ headquarters.
If they compete on price and keep the same quality of delivery service - my guess is they'll be fine. Or current bike messengers will just join Uber as it's an extremely powerful lead generation tool, similar to cleaners and Homejoy (as we've seen at least some small level of cabbies joining Uber - I don't have hard numbers, but I have at least one anecdote that this has happened before).
I am a big fan of challenger brands like uber, but this doesn't seem to be news.
Keep on challenging the old taxi industries around the world.
Keep on challenging the old taxi industries around the world.
Unclear if this is better used for transporting drugs, or transporting cats. Seems like it would work for either. I don't see any real terms of service limitations or KYC which would prevent it from being used as a "delivery service" for drugs.
In any metro area, there is already door-to-door delivery for any drugs you might want, likely cheaper than what Uber can afford anyway as delivery price is already baked into the price of the drugs.
This is just Kozmo.com 2.0
This is just Kozmo.com 2.0
In NYC and the Bay maybe. In most other metros?
I'd extend it to include even rural and suburban areas.
It is easier to imagine if you consider that it is likely safer for a dealer to simply travel to their customers. One attracts too much attention if they have random people showing up at their residence, or takes on more risk if they have to meet under the public eye. Customers share in this decreased risk.
It also provides low level dealers a competitive advantage in markets they don't have locked down. It might be more of a necessity than optional service these days.
It is easier to imagine if you consider that it is likely safer for a dealer to simply travel to their customers. One attracts too much attention if they have random people showing up at their residence, or takes on more risk if they have to meet under the public eye. Customers share in this decreased risk.
It also provides low level dealers a competitive advantage in markets they don't have locked down. It might be more of a necessity than optional service these days.
The words "Maximum Capacity" at the bottom of the page expand when clicked to reveal "If your messenger refuses delivery due to size/value/fragility or possible illegality, a cancellation fee will apply"
You clearly wouldn't declare "cocaine, 1kg" on the package, so I don't think drugs would be easy to catch. (although I think end-user-retail p2p lockers would be much better for this than couriers).
With cats, I suppose couriers might refuse them -- walking down the street with a cat carrier would be kind of unpleasant, and it would be worse on a bike.
With cats, I suppose couriers might refuse them -- walking down the street with a cat carrier would be kind of unpleasant, and it would be worse on a bike.
We had a rule at the company I messengered at: Never ask what’s in the package.
But I honestly doubt anyone ever trusted us with drugs, the most memorable things I delivered were A) a pee cup (luckily empty) and B) an industrial size sink from Wall St. to 42nd.
But I honestly doubt anyone ever trusted us with drugs, the most memorable things I delivered were A) a pee cup (luckily empty) and B) an industrial size sink from Wall St. to 42nd.
That made me wonder: why wouldn’t they suggest to use a Uber Car in case the object was large or fragile? Sounds like a perfect case of up-sell.
I can already imagine lawyers having a field-day on the words ‘possible illegality’.
I can already imagine lawyers having a field-day on the words ‘possible illegality’.
Parking.
I’m not sure how that is more of a problem than what Uber faces for the moment: imagine a bike messenger (heavily branded as it seems they are going to be) facing a parcel that isn’t ridiculously large, but still not ideal to carry in a messenger bag — smaller than a carry-on luggage. Shouldn’t he be able to say: “Look, I can strap that and risk crashing your box, or for $3 more I can ask this Uber driver who’s idle right now to do the delivery for you. He’ll be here in three minutes.”
I'm assuming the same regulations and laws regarding what can be sent apply to Uber Rush as the couriers and messengers working outside of Uber. The same way the same driving laws (like speed limit, stop lights, etc.) apply to Uber drivers.
I'm wondering how big this market is - when I was growing up in NYC bike messengers were everywhere. And if you were an architect (like my stepfather), then there was a constant need to ship around drawings et al. But the messenger business seems to have largely disappeared - still there, but much, much smaller than when my brother was on the bike. Hasn't the digital age really ended the need for a lot of this? I'm guessing that there is a market need here or else Uber wouldn't be pursuing - but I do have to wonder. I agree with others, though, that they should get their business billing situation settled.
Huge market. I worked in the traditional printing business and we sometimes had to use regular car services to messenger proofs. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to use regular über cars in that way and they just decided to roll with it.
Lawyers have a huge and ongoing need for couriers who can hand-deliver original documents.
They also have a huge need to have their courier requirements disrupted.
>their *everthing disrupted
FTFY
FTFY
There is definitely still a market in NYC, but you're right it’s smaller. Architects, lawyers, the fashion industry, and photo/video studios were our major clientele when I was working a few years back.
Lawyers, accountants, the biomedical industry, real estate, the potential for tapping those markets are there. I've interacted with a few, and from what I've seen, they're loathe to try anything new if what they have works. Uber will have some creative marketing to do to reach out to these potential customers.
The zone pricing is a little strange to me. So it's cheaper to have something delivered the 50 blocks from 110th to 59th St than it would be to go say, a block or two from 35th to 33rd?
Yes. You trade some unfairness in a handful of (literally) corner cases for a simpler hand-made tariff scheme that may take into account the subtleties of the trade while being still easy for the client to understand it.
Makes sense, traffic congestion varies.
Traffic has zero to do with this.
Traffic can be both pedestrian and foot based also regular car traffic will impact your deliveries.
I'm pretty sure people downvoting me have no clue about NYC and never you walked through Korea town during rush hour.
I'm pretty sure people downvoting me have no clue about NYC and never you walked through Korea town during rush hour.
except.... cars
but it's only offered by bike or foot
I bike nearly 100% of my daily commute for the last 3 years. I am affected by traffic, not so much to the point that I am as slow as traffic, but traffic affects me to a discernable degree.
Bridge fail; increased load on bart.
Traffic jam == less aware driver which cause me to be more cautious on my route to work == slower... I bike 2 miles from home to Bart, then bike 1 mile from Bart to office... used to be greater distance...
So minimum 6 miles a day: ~260 work days a year = ~1560 Miles biked... *3+ years at a scaling factor of say, 80% is ~3700 miles commuted... my speed has always been based on external factors; traffic, Bart death, cal-train fullness/death, weather, etc...
It is a significant impact on timing... so to say that Rush is not subject to any of this is ignoring reality.
HOWEVER: I will admit that in dense urban environ, with bikes, bike always win..
So: I'd conclude based on own experience that traffic reduction, sans massive catastrophe to the biker, is ~10-20% BELOW WHAT AN UNFETTERED BIKER CAN DO (i.e. n cars at all)
A biker, assuming reasonable distance, should be significantly faster than a car, in dense urban.
So, I may have invalidated my GP post...
Bridge fail; increased load on bart.
Traffic jam == less aware driver which cause me to be more cautious on my route to work == slower... I bike 2 miles from home to Bart, then bike 1 mile from Bart to office... used to be greater distance...
So minimum 6 miles a day: ~260 work days a year = ~1560 Miles biked... *3+ years at a scaling factor of say, 80% is ~3700 miles commuted... my speed has always been based on external factors; traffic, Bart death, cal-train fullness/death, weather, etc...
It is a significant impact on timing... so to say that Rush is not subject to any of this is ignoring reality.
HOWEVER: I will admit that in dense urban environ, with bikes, bike always win..
So: I'd conclude based on own experience that traffic reduction, sans massive catastrophe to the biker, is ~10-20% BELOW WHAT AN UNFETTERED BIKER CAN DO (i.e. n cars at all)
A biker, assuming reasonable distance, should be significantly faster than a car, in dense urban.
So, I may have invalidated my GP post...
"Premium Rush" [1]?
I didn't knew bike couriers existed before I saw this movie on TV. Is this common in NY, or is Uber introducing the idea? Is it common elsewhere?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6ie1zCkZU
I didn't knew bike couriers existed before I saw this movie on TV. Is this common in NY, or is Uber introducing the idea? Is it common elsewhere?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6ie1zCkZU
I didn't knew bike couriers existed before I saw this movie on TV. Is this common in NY, or is Uber introducing the idea?
Bicycle couriers have been in New York City and other large cities in the United States (including mine, Minneapolis) for a long time. They are especially suited for traveling from one building in a dense "downtown" area to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_messenger
http://www.blazingsaddles.net/
Bicycle couriers have been in New York City and other large cities in the United States (including mine, Minneapolis) for a long time. They are especially suited for traveling from one building in a dense "downtown" area to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_messenger
http://www.blazingsaddles.net/
(In New York at least) they also deliver food.
Bike couriers date back to the 1860s in general and New York in particular to at least the 1890s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_messenger#History
There is a big bike courier scene in Melbourne (Australia) with full hipster beards and fixies.
That movie's precursor:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091814/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091814/
Bike messenger services are commonplace in the NYC area. Uber is using their logistics prowess to make it more efficient and probably cheaper.
oh yeah, bike courriers have been around in NYC for over a decade. Same goes for every major metropolis in the USA.
"over a decade", heh - I was one 30 years ago.
when i saw this news, i also remember the same movie.
Uber RUSH lets you deliver packages with a mobile app that's probably as convenient as their driver app.
Awesome expansion by Uber. I suppose the same drivers that drive people around will now be driving stuff around too? Probably doesn't even cost too much in terms of new infrastructure. I wonder where they'll go next.
Edit: They actually did mention that the messenger arrives via bike or foot, so they won't have the same drivers delivering packages.
Awesome expansion by Uber. I suppose the same drivers that drive people around will now be driving stuff around too? Probably doesn't even cost too much in terms of new infrastructure. I wonder where they'll go next.
Edit: They actually did mention that the messenger arrives via bike or foot, so they won't have the same drivers delivering packages.
Did they specifically mention that it was a car who would be moving the package around? Seems like bike couriers would be a way better option, at least for NYC...
Ah you're right. "Your messenger will be on bike or on foot, and will not be able to deliver some oversized items"
I'm only on board with this if they are covering the bikers that are going to end up in the hospital — otherwise it's on everyone else.
We’re proud to announce our partnership with the
Bike Messenger Emergency Fund (BMEF). The BMEF
is a non profit public charity organization that provides
emergency compensation to bicycle messengers who
are hurt on the job. With the launch of UberRUSH, we
will donate $1 from each delivery to the BMEF.This is not insurance.
Bike messengers are almost universally contractors (there are some wonderful companies who basically exist to treat their messengers well, but they're a small part of the market). That obviously means they don't provide insurance and don't have to carry workman's comp for those employees. Most messengers I know make dirt pay and could never afford insurance except through their spouses (or parents if they're young). They live and die on being careful and help from the community and the BMEF (which is an awesome organization), and they do it because they can barely imagine life off a bike even in the face of the risks. So Uber isn't unique in this sense at all. That said, they're obviously swinging to cut margins out of an industry that already can barely support its workers. I'm more curious about the rates they pay than anything -- I actually suspect few in the industry would object to outcompeting large dispatchers if they pass some of that on to messengers in the form of better/stable pay. But BMEF donations "with the launch" (they do not say long-term) are no substitute for responsible employment.
On the whole I'm a bit surprised -- the messenger industry has been shrinking a lot as people need fewer actual signatures on documents. I suspect they're doing it more to understand the delivery market and pilot a delivery service than for the traditional document carrying market.
On the whole I'm a bit surprised -- the messenger industry has been shrinking a lot as people need fewer actual signatures on documents. I suspect they're doing it more to understand the delivery market and pilot a delivery service than for the traditional document carrying market.
Why? Is biking particularly dangerous? Shouldn't the bikers themselves have insurance like drivers do?
of course it is dangerous. but if you are employed by uber and get hurt "on the job" while carrying out their agenda, they should be responsible for your recovery.
Your not really an employee as I understand. Also seems like the automobiles should be liable in an accident.
You're an employee, blah blah blah aside. Come on. They take their cut of the profit, they must take their cut of the responsibility.
...If they're going to take a cut of your pay but not call you an employee then this is the biggest business loophole in history.
You can look at it as a service connecting bike messengers to people that need deliveries.
A comparable example is Google Play or the Apple store. They take a cut of your pay by connecting you to customers but they don't call you an employee. Where is the uproar there?
A comparable example is Google Play or the Apple store. They take a cut of your pay by connecting you to customers but they don't call you an employee. Where is the uproar there?
When I sell something on eBay I don't have any expectations that I'm an eBay employee. The Google Play and Apple app store are both apt analogies as well. Selling goods or services on a marketplace often comes at a cost per transaction, but it almost never comes with an expectation of employment.
Well, in my country if you work without a contract and the companies fires you without cause, you can sue them in Labor court and the judges will do a test to see if you were de-facto employed: whether you had fixed working hours, a manager that told you specific tasks and evaluated you on them, were paid a fixed salary or a per-task or per-hour rate, and a few others.
In Uber's case, and AFAIK, the drivers don't have any of that. They just have to take a course, and then they can just take any job they want, when they want, without fixed hours or even fixed days per week.
To me, they sound more like freelancers than employees.
In Uber's case, and AFAIK, the drivers don't have any of that. They just have to take a course, and then they can just take any job they want, when they want, without fixed hours or even fixed days per week.
To me, they sound more like freelancers than employees.
In the US, a court can also rule that you were de-facto employed. There was a famous case with Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft
This happens all of the time. Large US companies sometimes only hire contractors that have employee status with some other firm to protect themselves.
In the standard test to determine whether an person is an employee, they look at things like who supplies the equipment, who sets the hours, whether it possible for the contractor to have a loss -- most critically in the Uber case, you are more likely to be classified an employee if you do the work that is the purpose of the company.
What that means is that if I clean the offices, I can be a contractor because the purpose of the company might be to make and sell widgets. If I am on the factory floor making the widgets, then the labor dept. frowns on a contractor classification.
These are all just guidelines -- the labor dept or a judge will make the call, but US tax laws incent them to prefer employee status.
(IANAL, but I have served on an employment board, overseeing a US Labor dept regional office)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft
This happens all of the time. Large US companies sometimes only hire contractors that have employee status with some other firm to protect themselves.
In the standard test to determine whether an person is an employee, they look at things like who supplies the equipment, who sets the hours, whether it possible for the contractor to have a loss -- most critically in the Uber case, you are more likely to be classified an employee if you do the work that is the purpose of the company.
What that means is that if I clean the offices, I can be a contractor because the purpose of the company might be to make and sell widgets. If I am on the factory floor making the widgets, then the labor dept. frowns on a contractor classification.
These are all just guidelines -- the labor dept or a judge will make the call, but US tax laws incent them to prefer employee status.
(IANAL, but I have served on an employment board, overseeing a US Labor dept regional office)
false equivalency. what is the risk of being injured selling items on ebay, compared to flying through the streets of manhattan during rush hour on your bike? however, they due insure purchases in the case you get ripped off, which is much more likely to happen.
when did social responsibility go out the window? to me, this isn't a profitable business if they have to claim responsibility for the people they are putting in risk to make a buck. yet, they do it anyone and pass the cost on to the tax payer and no on seems to mind.
when did social responsibility go out the window? to me, this isn't a profitable business if they have to claim responsibility for the people they are putting in risk to make a buck. yet, they do it anyone and pass the cost on to the tax payer and no on seems to mind.
As everyone predicted, Uber is branching out with their expertise on "delivering things on demand", whether it be cars, ice cream trucks, kittens, or now packages.
I wish I was in NY just to play with the UX!
If I have a RUSH order in progress, can I still order a traditional Uber ride?
RUSH is a business use case, which makes me think they'll soon support multiple concurrent rides since that's also a common business use case. When I was a lowly analyst, I often had to coordinate multiple cars for large groups. Really common situation in the NY finance scene (thank god I haven't worked there in a long, long time...).
If I have a RUSH order in progress, can I still order a traditional Uber ride?
RUSH is a business use case, which makes me think they'll soon support multiple concurrent rides since that's also a common business use case. When I was a lowly analyst, I often had to coordinate multiple cars for large groups. Really common situation in the NY finance scene (thank god I haven't worked there in a long, long time...).
i often get the feeling that uber is positioning itself to strike gold with business billing. uber should build a feature that enables companies by allowing employees to expense there uber rides and 'rush' deliveries.
There is alot of business in this space and they will get the app into high level employees phones
It would be the akin to a corporate 'amex' ... bill the company 'uber'
There is alot of business in this space and they will get the app into high level employees phones
It would be the akin to a corporate 'amex' ... bill the company 'uber'
I agree. It seems that Uber could be for transportation what Seamless is for food (at least in midtown Manhattan). Currently, banks etc. either hire company car services to take employees home late at night or reimburse late-night taxi expenses post-hoc. It would be great to simply charge these late-night rides to the company Uber just as we order dinner on the company Seamless.
Uber had 'Uber perks' - http://blog.uber.com/2013/02/07/introducing-uber-perks-our-c... - but the link in that seems to be broken now, not sure if it still exists.
I don't think they need to do that. The people who would do this expensing probably already have a company credit card plugged into uber, and an assistant to handling the actual expensing process from an emailed receipt.
I was kind of hoping this involved bringing Geddy Lee to my home.
There's no minimum wage or other worker protections if you sign contracts for services.
The social contract is never signed, & it's getting abandoned more & more.