Uber drivers win employee rights case(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Uber drivers win employee rights case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386
18 comments
Good. If your path to ritches involves circumventing laws to protect workers in order to pay them less and undercut the competition, then basically you are the reason these laws exist.
Basically every other taxi driver firm also employees self-employed drivers.
Yes a lot of them, although you have to sign a proper employment form. And you can't turn off your phone whenever or work for other companies as well. You have a proper schedule.
Uber works differently. The driver chooses when and how many hours he wants to work and when to pick a ride. If what was decided above applies for every uber employee its not gonna go down pretty well cause :
Uber is going to become one more minicab agency, where it employees people with a schedule and its price is going to go up by a lot.
Customers won't benefit and drivers won't either.
Most of the drivers I've spoken to and I use Uber a lot have told me that the job is not as great or the pay depending on the amount of time they work and if they are actually renting a car or having a car on lease or own it, the thing that everyone told me is that they get to work whenever they want and thats awesome about it.
Apply rules to the Uber is gonna force rules to be applied to drivers as well and thats not gonna go well.
Uber works differently. The driver chooses when and how many hours he wants to work and when to pick a ride. If what was decided above applies for every uber employee its not gonna go down pretty well cause :
Uber is going to become one more minicab agency, where it employees people with a schedule and its price is going to go up by a lot.
Customers won't benefit and drivers won't either.
Most of the drivers I've spoken to and I use Uber a lot have told me that the job is not as great or the pay depending on the amount of time they work and if they are actually renting a car or having a car on lease or own it, the thing that everyone told me is that they get to work whenever they want and thats awesome about it.
Apply rules to the Uber is gonna force rules to be applied to drivers as well and thats not gonna go well.
They don't have to give people schedules, that's not part of the status "worker". In fact, if they did, the drivers would likely be classed as employees instead.
You can be a worker, turn down work whenever you want and work for multiple companies. That's all fine.
You can be a worker, turn down work whenever you want and work for multiple companies. That's all fine.
[deleted]
Uber is no cheaper than normal taxis in the UK, so the prices won't be going up by a lot. We already had pretty great, cheap, taxi coverage in the UK.
Not sure where you got that impression.
For me, in the UK, the selling points are that it's easy to use the app, you don't have to muck around with cash and the cars, at the moment, are new.
Oh, and that I can abuse the fact that I'm relatively rich compared to the plebs to jump the queue with surge pricing. Very un-british of me.
Not sure where you got that impression.
For me, in the UK, the selling points are that it's easy to use the app, you don't have to muck around with cash and the cars, at the moment, are new.
Oh, and that I can abuse the fact that I'm relatively rich compared to the plebs to jump the queue with surge pricing. Very un-british of me.
That might depend on the city but in London I've found a black cab is normally a minimum 30% more than an uber. For longer journeys it can jump to double the price. Uber surge could equalise it.
Black cabs are always more expensive than callable taxis, that's the way it works in the UK. You're comparing limes to lemons. Similar, but different and differently priced.
There's different rules between the two, that's why the black cabs tried to get a ruling saying that booking an uber was like hailing a taxi rather than booking it.
Many other taxi companies in the UK now have apps too and are pretty much the same price as Uber as far as I can tell in all the trips I've taken in Nottingham.
There's different rules between the two, that's why the black cabs tried to get a ruling saying that booking an uber was like hailing a taxi rather than booking it.
Many other taxi companies in the UK now have apps too and are pretty much the same price as Uber as far as I can tell in all the trips I've taken in Nottingham.
Okay, but I am trying to figure out how you exploit people who voluntarily work for you. They know what they will get paid and what is expected.
If anything this protects the established taxi services more than benefiting any worker. Effectively they had probably pushed some people out of the ability to work for Uber
If anything this protects the established taxi services more than benefiting any worker. Effectively they had probably pushed some people out of the ability to work for Uber
Exploitation of voluntary workers has a long, long history. It's basically the reason why unions came into existence, and employment laws.
For example, in times of high unemployment, I could tell my workers that if they want to keep their jobs, they will work unpaid overtime, or take a pay cut, or give me a blow job, or work without adequate safety gear. These kind of Hobson's choices are real things that really happen.
I frequently see a less explicit exploitation of voluntary workers in companies; when a company encourages a culture of long hours and not taking holidays, they're getting extra hours for free from their voluntary employees (take your holidays, people).
For example, in times of high unemployment, I could tell my workers that if they want to keep their jobs, they will work unpaid overtime, or take a pay cut, or give me a blow job, or work without adequate safety gear. These kind of Hobson's choices are real things that really happen.
I frequently see a less explicit exploitation of voluntary workers in companies; when a company encourages a culture of long hours and not taking holidays, they're getting extra hours for free from their voluntary employees (take your holidays, people).
Because they work for them, they aren't independent contractors engaging in a negotiated business deal.
The greater issue is that legislation has not caught up with the "gig" economy. It needs to be recognized as a distinct form of employment with appropriate benefits.
It is - the 'worker' status at issue in this case is distinct from both conventional employment and self-employment.
Of course, the reason the law already had a suitable category is because the 'gig economy' looks an awful lot like a bunch of existing labour models (temporary, piecework-based, flexible and insecure) plus apps.
Of course, the reason the law already had a suitable category is because the 'gig economy' looks an awful lot like a bunch of existing labour models (temporary, piecework-based, flexible and insecure) plus apps.
This seems like really, really bad news for Uber. Could someone with more knowledge on the topic chime in on how this might manifest?
It's funny that I thought the same thing but from the other side, "it seems a really good news for Uber 'employees' (or workers or whatever you want to call them)".
That's something I always try to keep in mind while reading HN, most of us are well paid to do something we love, many of us are entrepreneurs (whatever that means, again), and most (?) of us are americans. Uber drivers are not well paid, and if they are they work 26 hours a day in LA or NYC or any big rich city and don't know if they still will earn enough money in one or two years because Uber will change their contract or let them go if they refuse.
Most Uber drivers and customers I meet are very happy with the experience. Scores of them left traditional jobs to drive for Uber because they liked the pay and flexibility.
Some of regulation of ride-sharing seems to be done out of a spirit of bitterness that they aren't "following the rules", and it doesn't seem to be in benefit of anyone.
Some of regulation of ride-sharing seems to be done out of a spirit of bitterness that they aren't "following the rules", and it doesn't seem to be in benefit of anyone.
> Some of regulation of ride-sharing seems to be done out of a spirit of bitterness that they aren't "following the rules", and it doesn't seem to be in benefit of anyone.
Some rules are in place for a reason. The US is sadly awful when it comes to workers rights. It's why Uber can get away with this garbage. It's why "right to work" and "at will employment" laws exist. It's why IT workers are overtime exempt. It's why "union" is a dirty word in many circles.
Skirting employment law isn't being DISRUPTIVE! It's just being a scummy business.
Some rules are in place for a reason. The US is sadly awful when it comes to workers rights. It's why Uber can get away with this garbage. It's why "right to work" and "at will employment" laws exist. It's why IT workers are overtime exempt. It's why "union" is a dirty word in many circles.
Skirting employment law isn't being DISRUPTIVE! It's just being a scummy business.
> Skirting employment law isn't being DISRUPTIVE! It's just being a scummy business.
No. Treating your workers poorly makes you a scummy business. Not every case of skirting employment law is a case of treating your workers poorly, and not every case of poor treatment is covered by employment law.
Conflating legality with morality is a cornerstone of authoritarianism.
No. Treating your workers poorly makes you a scummy business. Not every case of skirting employment law is a case of treating your workers poorly, and not every case of poor treatment is covered by employment law.
Conflating legality with morality is a cornerstone of authoritarianism.
> Scores of them left traditional jobs to drive for Uber because they liked the pay and flexibility.
And this ruling won't affect the flexibility at all, and they'll be guaranteed minimum wage (which if the pay really is great won't make a difference at all).
And this ruling won't affect the flexibility at all, and they'll be guaranteed minimum wage (which if the pay really is great won't make a difference at all).
What do you think regulation does if not punish people for not following the rules?
Much more likely is that the job market for drivers shrinks.
Oh trust me, I'm not on Uber's side in this battle. Not that I necessarily think drivers should be employees, I haven't put much thought into it. I just hope we can get rid of our obsession with this cash-hemorrhaging law-flaunting business before it permanently changes our cities. We're starting to see cities basically substituting Uber for functional public transit and that's awfully dangerous when the business model isn't even close to sustainable.
Rulings like this (regardless of if they're good or bad for Uber) are good for us simply because they give us a bit more signal on where things are going and how to prepare for it.
Rulings like this (regardless of if they're good or bad for Uber) are good for us simply because they give us a bit more signal on where things are going and how to prepare for it.
Actually I'm not convinced anyone really wins on a case like this, other than those who get paid additional code benefits or salary from past work. Going forward, it seems the more likely outcome for the typical driver is not that they suddenly get more money for future work, but that the job goes away or shrinks.
Uber always seemed to have a weak case at best, and seem to know it with their arbitration clauses - but no doubt they'll apppeal.
If they ultimately lose then Uber will be liable for backpay for the employees, backtax and possibly a fine.
If they ultimately lose then Uber will be liable for backpay for the employees, backtax and possibly a fine.
I hope Uber self-driving cars come and these people get unemployed.
Why do you hope that?
They simply disputed their status in open court and the judge seems to agree with them, whether or not Uber self-driving cars will come has no bearing on this case, and if and when they become un-employed it still will not be because of this case or any others.
Of course employers the world over would love to get rid of their #1 cost, but that's no reason to break the law by pretending you don't have any employees when actually you do.
They simply disputed their status in open court and the judge seems to agree with them, whether or not Uber self-driving cars will come has no bearing on this case, and if and when they become un-employed it still will not be because of this case or any others.
Of course employers the world over would love to get rid of their #1 cost, but that's no reason to break the law by pretending you don't have any employees when actually you do.
fiatjaf(2)
If a multinational operates in Europe, they should (and almost certainly did) know the status of the drivers.
The reality is that you have to meet a couple of criteria to avoid the "fake self-employment" laws, and the drivers don't.
You can work for a single client as a freelancer for extended periods of time, but you have to demonstrate that the project requires significant creative input and you're not just following orders (or a dispatch system in this case).
The reality is that you have to meet a couple of criteria to avoid the "fake self-employment" laws, and the drivers don't.
You can work for a single client as a freelancer for extended periods of time, but you have to demonstrate that the project requires significant creative input and you're not just following orders (or a dispatch system in this case).
geofft(1)
That could be really bad if the tax man wants retroactive payments because of this ruling.
30K people times a few years that really adds up.
30K people times a few years that really adds up.
In the US many employers restrict the hours that employees can work to avoid paying benefits, is this a likely tack for Uber if they lose the appeals?
I think it might be quite difficult for them, as some of these rights apply regardless of hours worked: https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
Indeed one of the categorisations that qualifies you as self employed is whether the times you work are dictated to you or whether you set your own work timetable.
This would not necessarily dictate the times worked, just the amount.
On site like Upwork it is common practice to have people work 10h/week to start so that work product can be evaluated before spending a tonne with a given contractor, or just to be able to keep up and interact at a reasonable pace.
That's not really a legal argument, but it is some precedent that controlling the amount of hours worked is not the same as controlling exactly when they are worked.
On site like Upwork it is common practice to have people work 10h/week to start so that work product can be evaluated before spending a tonne with a given contractor, or just to be able to keep up and interact at a reasonable pace.
That's not really a legal argument, but it is some precedent that controlling the amount of hours worked is not the same as controlling exactly when they are worked.
Anyone in Santa Clara (California), I believe there's a ballot proposition this election to try to do something at the local level (basically, requiring additional work hours to be offered to existing employees first -- pushing them over into full-time status -- before hiring more part-time staff to take the hours).
That seems like the sort of rule that a government could apply to itself, but very unlikely to successfully change nongovernment company behavior.
If governments (city, state, federal, etc.) really want to see part-time versus full-time employees treated more similarly, the way to do that is to reduce the differences between them. Of course this goes straight to the heart of many of our difficulties around all these things: the legacy-of-WW2-wage-controls connection between full-time employment and expensive (health insurance mostly) benefits. If that ever got fixed it would also fix many other things.
If governments (city, state, federal, etc.) really want to see part-time versus full-time employees treated more similarly, the way to do that is to reduce the differences between them. Of course this goes straight to the heart of many of our difficulties around all these things: the legacy-of-WW2-wage-controls connection between full-time employment and expensive (health insurance mostly) benefits. If that ever got fixed it would also fix many other things.
If Uber does this it will only strengthen the "employee" argument, and trigger even more issues for them in my nonlawyerly opinion.
Uber aren't profitable as it is (and their prices aren't that much cheaper than taxi's in the UK - so they can't just price hike without losing large numbers of customers).
I assume their strategy for profitability now, in the UK at least, is just take VC money until driverless cars are legalised.
I assume their strategy for profitability now, in the UK at least, is just take VC money until driverless cars are legalised.
> their prices aren't that much cheaper than taxi's in the UK
Really? I find them at least a third cheaper than taxis in London for any trip over about five minutes.
I still feel guilty for taking an Uber (and note the difference in ability and knowledge immediately compared to black cabs). I'll be more inclined to take them, even with less of a saving, knowing that they are not allowed to treat their drivers quite so poorly.
Really? I find them at least a third cheaper than taxis in London for any trip over about five minutes.
I still feel guilty for taking an Uber (and note the difference in ability and knowledge immediately compared to black cabs). I'll be more inclined to take them, even with less of a saving, knowing that they are not allowed to treat their drivers quite so poorly.
I've had 2 situations where the Knowledge of black cab drivers has been hopelessly outclassed by the smarts of smartphone sat-nav.
The cab drivers sat in traffic, the Uber drivers were alerted and rerouted. I arrived on time and with a smaller bill. Sure a black cab driver could have done that with smartphone alerts but none of them seem to make use of them - perhaps it's due to professional pride derived from passing the famously difficult "Knowledge" exams.
Finally, black cabs are horrible if you're a cyclist, whereas Uber drivers are by-and-large no different from any other driver.
I'm glad the Uber drivers have better employment status now but aside from the horrible misfortune of having bought a hackney license, I don't really have too much sympathy for Black Cab drivers.
The cab drivers sat in traffic, the Uber drivers were alerted and rerouted. I arrived on time and with a smaller bill. Sure a black cab driver could have done that with smartphone alerts but none of them seem to make use of them - perhaps it's due to professional pride derived from passing the famously difficult "Knowledge" exams.
Finally, black cabs are horrible if you're a cyclist, whereas Uber drivers are by-and-large no different from any other driver.
I'm glad the Uber drivers have better employment status now but aside from the horrible misfortune of having bought a hackney license, I don't really have too much sympathy for Black Cab drivers.
> I find them at least a third cheaper than taxis in London
They're much cheaper than black cabs in Manchester too, but still about equivalent to private hire companies, surge pricing aside.
They're much cheaper than black cabs in Manchester too, but still about equivalent to private hire companies, surge pricing aside.
Sorry I should clarify - not that much cheaper than private hire taxis I meant, ie Addison Lee.
Yes, in London Uber is at least a third cheaper – possibly more – than a black cab fare. It's almost too cheap. I would happily pay a little bit more.
Why can't they just raise the price? The service uber provides is so far superior to a traditional taxi that customers would surely be willing to pay more. I'd gladly pay much more, perhaps even double the current rates.
Uber basically has little choice but to exit the UK if their efforts to keep it all on a contractual basis fails. This is similar to the Walmart vs Unions situation, I'm just curious how willing Uber is to make an example out of UK.
The only loser in that case is Uber. Uber has made most existing minicab firms step up their game - quite a few were experimenting with apps before Uber arrived, but now almost all but the one man shops have apps (in addition to phone operators), text messages on arrival, car tracking, etc... I'd be surprised if Uber can't find a way to make it profitable here, it's a long established market and they're not /that/ much cheaper, if at all, than the competition - unless the minicab industry is simply one which doesn't scale.
I think this is a strange way of looking at it. This is the British legal system making an example of Uber; asserting that existing laws apply even if you manage your workforce via an app.
Depends, If all their drivers lose their jobs because of this, people will just be angry at the law.
Considering Uber is pretty useful for people like to work flexbility, there would a few of them.
Considering Uber is pretty useful for people like to work flexbility, there would a few of them.
This has nothing to do with working flexibly. Worker status has absolutely no requirements about regular hours. If they regulated the hours worked they'd be much more likely to be classed as employees instead.
[deleted]
It's not even that, Uber were just first to get a verdict. There's quite a few "fake self-employment" cases going through the system at the moment. Hermes and Deliveroo for certain, and I think Yodel too.
But by the same logic a website that helps matching graphic designers with prospective clients should be considered said designers' employer? This makes no sense.
If the site exercised enough direction and control so they specified you must do the work at their desk in their working hours. If they deny you the right to substitute an acceptable alternative person, or work for others, then the relationship would start to seem of employment. There's quite a lot of other pointers.
Uber seem to fail most of these "in business" points for their drivers with their heavily one sided agreement.
Going back to IT contractors and IR35 in the early '00s it's been a constant "discussion" of where the line is. For contractors we had to get quite good at amending contracts, and satisfy other aspects to be able to remain unaffected. In that case the govt wanted us to be employees, contractors didn't!
Uber seem to fail most of these "in business" points for their drivers with their heavily one sided agreement.
Going back to IT contractors and IR35 in the early '00s it's been a constant "discussion" of where the line is. For contractors we had to get quite good at amending contracts, and satisfy other aspects to be able to remain unaffected. In that case the govt wanted us to be employees, contractors didn't!
I'll think you find that Uber drivers also want to be self employed.
There is only 2 drivers who led this case, and they currently work for some private taxi cab association.
There is only 2 drivers who led this case, and they currently work for some private taxi cab association.
Certainly not the impression I've got from media reports of demos and Uber Eat strike days etc. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
For drivers I don't understand the appeal of being self employed there's nothing to gain by it.
If they still want to show they're operating as self employed they can with a b2b relationship with Uber, website and advertising, exercising right of substitution, and all the other HMRC indicators of being in business.
For drivers I don't understand the appeal of being self employed there's nothing to gain by it.
If they still want to show they're operating as self employed they can with a b2b relationship with Uber, website and advertising, exercising right of substitution, and all the other HMRC indicators of being in business.
And all people on zero-hours contracts love that and all children who worked in factories were violently against being sent to school.
The two drivers are test plaintiffs. It's the British legal system's alternative to the class action, where a few representative claimants are chosen for a full trial, and the parties agree that the legal result controls the other cases.
I don't know how many are in the '& others' in this case.
I don't know how many are in the '& others' in this case.
No; there's plenty of scope in English law for genuine self-employment. Genuinely self-employed people using a marketplace to find work are not employees of the marketplace. But if you (in reality) look like an employee of an intermediary firm - they have control over what, when, and how you work, you can't substitute yourself with a colleague or sub-contractor, and so on - then the state will ignore the 'form' of the contract you've signed and look to the substance.
In many of these cases (especially those of the new courier firms who 'self-'employ drivers/deliverers) it looks and smells like an employment relationship. The courts are entitled to find that that's what it is.
In many of these cases (especially those of the new courier firms who 'self-'employ drivers/deliverers) it looks and smells like an employment relationship. The courts are entitled to find that that's what it is.
Not should, but could? Yes, if the site demanded the designers to sign strict contracts.
For example, if it requires designers to only work through them, be available 9-5 every weekday with x holidays to be asked for weeks ahead, and accept a fixed hourly rate, I'm fairly sure the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the site.
Alternatively, if the site only is a broker who brings designers into contact with clients (free or for a fee), and a designer works for a single client for years, chances are (IMHO, IANAL) the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the client.
For example, if it requires designers to only work through them, be available 9-5 every weekday with x holidays to be asked for weeks ahead, and accept a fixed hourly rate, I'm fairly sure the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the site.
Alternatively, if the site only is a broker who brings designers into contact with clients (free or for a fee), and a designer works for a single client for years, chances are (IMHO, IANAL) the U.K. would judge the designer to be employed by the client.
No, because under UK law it's not a simple checklist of things that make a person a contractor or a worker. There are a long list of reasons given in the judgment that apply to Uber and not, say, 99designs.
I find this perspective a little chilling, to be honest. In what way is Uber going to "make an example of" the UK? Companies follow laws, laws do not follow companies and that's the way it should be. Corporate interests are already extremely over-represented in Government, Government should be looking out for the people not the companies.
"Companies follow laws, laws do not follow companies and that's the way it should be. Corporate interests are already extremely over-represented in Government"
As your second part notes, corporations do indeed often change laws. Laws and reality go hand-in-hand, both ways. Many laws change because they're not working well, to include offending a politician's bigger donors. Companies are a major part of politics, regardless of our preferences.
As your second part notes, corporations do indeed often change laws. Laws and reality go hand-in-hand, both ways. Many laws change because they're not working well, to include offending a politician's bigger donors. Companies are a major part of politics, regardless of our preferences.
This case was brought up by Uber drivers, not the UK government. If Uber is to cease its UK operations, then it will ultimately be because drivers went to court, so it should give others a pause when considering doing the same.
The bottom line that the UK drivers wanted to have a cake and eat it, bit the hand that feeds them, etc. If Uber lets this slide, it creates a bad precedent for them.
The bottom line that the UK drivers wanted to have a cake and eat it, bit the hand that feeds them, etc. If Uber lets this slide, it creates a bad precedent for them.
Nothing you're saying is incorrect, but the underlying problem is that Uber drivers provide a needed service with a market and are not being compensated properly, and this goes for a lot of the gig economy. We can argue all day about this but I don't think it's unreasonable for people who provide a service that people want to demand in exchange a livable wage for their work, regardless of what the work happens to be.
There's been a trend in our society the last 30 years or so that paints a picture of everyone who does manual labor for a living as being a lesser person, and it's damaging us. Yes, automation will save us from a lot of our current burdens but we're not there yet, and until we are we still need people to unclog our drains, pave our streets and maintain the sewers. It's not glamorous and not skilled but it is desperately needed, and we can't just say "well low wages come with shitty jobs" and walk away like not having garbagemen is an option.
There's been a trend in our society the last 30 years or so that paints a picture of everyone who does manual labor for a living as being a lesser person, and it's damaging us. Yes, automation will save us from a lot of our current burdens but we're not there yet, and until we are we still need people to unclog our drains, pave our streets and maintain the sewers. It's not glamorous and not skilled but it is desperately needed, and we can't just say "well low wages come with shitty jobs" and walk away like not having garbagemen is an option.
If everybody in society deserves a living wage, then society should pay for it instead of regulating productive activity out of business.
If your business model relies on you paying people less than a minimum wage, there's no particular reason that a society who's decided that's a bad idea should allow you to limit your liability to losses.
They are looking after the people working in the gig economy
If I interpret correctly, Uber is doing no such thing to those working in the gig economy. That's why they're getting prosecuted.
'Uber basically has little choice but to exit the UK..'
Outside of London Uber doesn't have that much of a presence. And, where it does, the drivers are often regular private hire drivers using Uber as an extra form of revenue.
So exiting the UK isn't going to hurt them so much.
Outside of London Uber doesn't have that much of a presence. And, where it does, the drivers are often regular private hire drivers using Uber as an extra form of revenue.
So exiting the UK isn't going to hurt them so much.
Uber doesn't make an example out of the UK. The UK makes an example out of Uber. I think you got your power play confused.
It kinda goes both ways- sure, the UK can make a power play here, but Uber can make an example to drivers in other countries as well.
"You want to make a case that you're employees? Joke's on you- now you have nothing. Peace."
The Wal-Mart analogy is actually pretty good- they've effectively deterred workers from unionizing by simply shutting stores where workers try to form a union. They've made it clear that if workers form a union, they'll shortly be out of jobs.
One can argue about the morality of this approach, but not really its effectiveness.
"You want to make a case that you're employees? Joke's on you- now you have nothing. Peace."
The Wal-Mart analogy is actually pretty good- they've effectively deterred workers from unionizing by simply shutting stores where workers try to form a union. They've made it clear that if workers form a union, they'll shortly be out of jobs.
One can argue about the morality of this approach, but not really its effectiveness.
People still need n number of cabs - the drivers will just work for another firm. Addison Lee have an app and comply with all relevant laws.
In many US cities before Uber, there was simply no way to get a cab when you wanted it. Markets match supply with demand but not when they're highly regulated.
I recall a few 45 minute hikes through San Francisco on a Friday night, futilely waving at each full cab that drove by
I recall a few 45 minute hikes through San Francisco on a Friday night, futilely waving at each full cab that drove by
There's not all that much they really need to do to meet their requirements though.
Pay minimum wage, give/pay holidays, give rest breaks. Pay national insurance.
Pay minimum wage, give/pay holidays, give rest breaks. Pay national insurance.
Hardly making an example of the UK. Whats more likely to happen is that Lyft, or some other Uber competitor, would happily take their place, customers and drivers alike.
Lyft is even more economically troubled than Uber and faces all the same regulatory obstacles so... no.
This is just a transition to driverless cars. Uber knows it and they are willing to pay the price.
I hope all their investors have their fingers crossed that governments are going to be totally okay with self driving cars. Despite, you know, a) totally unproven technology, b) no legal structures for liability, c) no legal structures for taxation, d) unemployment of local transportation workers, e) 100% of "gains" from said unemployment going to a Silicon Valley company, f) Uber's long track record of basically being an asshole in every market it sets foot in, g) did I mention the fact that there are no driverless cars?
And hey, if they're only losing (not spending, losing) $600,000,000 per month, they've got what, at least another couple years of VC money to burn? I'm sure everything will be figured out by then.
And hey, if they're only losing (not spending, losing) $600,000,000 per month, they've got what, at least another couple years of VC money to burn? I'm sure everything will be figured out by then.
It probably depends if they can hold out for true autonomous vehicles to become a reality.
It will be a long time before you see such cars on London streets, or anywhere without specifically designed lanes in fact.
All that cash they have accumulated is either going towards building a true driving AI that can mimic human decisions and not kill. Or it's being used to lobby/bribe governments to make their business model work while having to give compensation to drivers.
It will be a long time before you see such cars on London streets, or anywhere without specifically designed lanes in fact.
All that cash they have accumulated is either going towards building a true driving AI that can mimic human decisions and not kill. Or it's being used to lobby/bribe governments to make their business model work while having to give compensation to drivers.
That doesnt make sense. Yes I know that Uber want to transition to driverless vehicles but they cannot do that right now, they will need to maintain their momentum until such a time that they can do that. Which right now means adhere to the ruling to ensure that Uber still has a brand in the UK when they introduce driverless vehicles.
That's at least 10-20 years before the legal implications of driverless cars are figured out. That is, if the technology really proves to be reliable. Uber better have a lot of VC money to keep burning $2.4bn/year.
Good. Good for the drivers, for employee rights, for reducing inequality.
Good for the short term. Because within the next few years expect Uber to move to self-driving cars. Automating truckers will be a watershed.
There will come a time when basic income of some sort will need to be considered by advanced economies, or else expect unemployment, unrest and the rise of populist demagogues who will be much better (worse) candidates than Trump.
Good for the short term. Because within the next few years expect Uber to move to self-driving cars. Automating truckers will be a watershed.
There will come a time when basic income of some sort will need to be considered by advanced economies, or else expect unemployment, unrest and the rise of populist demagogues who will be much better (worse) candidates than Trump.
"Uber to move to self-driving cars"
I still don't understand why that scenario requires an Uber. Once self-driving cars are a thing, why does Uber need to exist? Their competitors in that case would be actual car manufacturers, and rental car companies that already have a distributed system for deploying cars (and partnerships with manufacturers). What edge does Uber have? Certainly they have mindshare, but that can evaporate as quickly as it was built.
I still don't understand why that scenario requires an Uber. Once self-driving cars are a thing, why does Uber need to exist? Their competitors in that case would be actual car manufacturers, and rental car companies that already have a distributed system for deploying cars (and partnerships with manufacturers). What edge does Uber have? Certainly they have mindshare, but that can evaporate as quickly as it was built.
Network effects. Car manufacturers will still want a place where they can find many riders so that they can maximize utilization (and thus, profit), while riders will want a place where they can find many available cars (so they don't have to wait).
There's going to be some platform that connects riders with self-driving transportation, the only questions are whose, how many, and how much value they extract out of being the platform.
There's going to be some platform that connects riders with self-driving transportation, the only questions are whose, how many, and how much value they extract out of being the platform.
> What edge does Uber have?
They have a service that already exists in the market so there's very little pivoting to be done, a brand that's recognized as a transportation network, a user-base, and I'd argue "getting an Uber" is becoming a neologism much like "Googling" is. I think those points give them a pretty strong advantage over the possible competitors.
They have a service that already exists in the market so there's very little pivoting to be done, a brand that's recognized as a transportation network, a user-base, and I'd argue "getting an Uber" is becoming a neologism much like "Googling" is. I think those points give them a pretty strong advantage over the possible competitors.
Uber are the first private hire company to have global mindshare. The app works the same whenever you go to a different country. I suspect that will prove to be very valuable.
It seems to me that there will be a fair amount of consumer inertia. Uber may be able to benefit for a number of years from people thinking of this as the app to go to to get a ride, automated or otherwise.
Of course in the long run (or even the medium run) that seems basically moot. There will be a zillion different ways to get essentially the same thing anyone else, I don't see any way for Uber to maintain a long-term advantage.
Of course in the long run (or even the medium run) that seems basically moot. There will be a zillion different ways to get essentially the same thing anyone else, I don't see any way for Uber to maintain a long-term advantage.
Im not saying it will happen, but if Tesla is the first company to get to fullautonomous car sharing, by just six months, uber will be toast.
What evidence does anyone have that users are reluctant to uninstall and/or download another app?
It takes literally a few seconds to do.
It takes literally a few seconds to do.
It depends if there's any real benefit. If I can choose between these situations where I pay basically the same amount of money:
* Open app, press hail button * Search for app, install app, setup user details, put in all my card details, press hail button
Why would I choose the latter?
* Open app, press hail button * Search for app, install app, setup user details, put in all my card details, press hail button
Why would I choose the latter?
That doesn't really answer my question.
Well, I rather think it does, I have no reason to download another app unless I know it's going to be a lot cheaper. Otherwise I'm just going to stick with the thing that's easy and already setup.
Okay, and I have 4 ridesharing apps currently installed, 2 of which were installed and setup while waiting for an Uber to arrive. There, we both have anecdata.
I asked for evidence of "consumer inertia." One or two datapoints does not "inertia" make.
I asked for evidence of "consumer inertia." One or two datapoints does not "inertia" make.
Very true. Uber was just an archetype; it could be Google, Mercedes or Avis.
Uber has a platform for selling journeys, whereas car rental companies are geared up to selling travel for a period of time. The former makes a lot more sense for self driving cars.
It will be easier for Uber to buy a fleet of self driving cars and replace their drivers than it will be for a car rental company to develop a platform for a new business model.
It will be easier for Uber to buy a fleet of self driving cars and replace their drivers than it will be for a car rental company to develop a platform for a new business model.
> than it will be for a car rental company to develop a platform for a new business model.
How much money and how long would it really take to build out a basic uber type system?
Uber does have an advantage in that they are already around and have that market share. Plus they have the system built and can start focusing on adding nice to have features and really polishing the experience.
How much money and how long would it really take to build out a basic uber type system?
Uber does have an advantage in that they are already around and have that market share. Plus they have the system built and can start focusing on adding nice to have features and really polishing the experience.
> There will come a time when basic income of some sort will need to be considered by advanced economies, or else expect unemployment, unrest and the rise of populist demagogues...
Hard to imagine that basic income will be politically possible in the near or medium term. Our culture is so wrapped up in the idea of the necessity of jobs that I predict we will see government programs to pay 1/2 of the people to dig holes and the other 1/2 to fill them in, before we see basic income.
Hard to imagine that basic income will be politically possible in the near or medium term. Our culture is so wrapped up in the idea of the necessity of jobs that I predict we will see government programs to pay 1/2 of the people to dig holes and the other 1/2 to fill them in, before we see basic income.
It will be easier to introduce basic income in certain parts of Europe.
The US will be an altogether different challenge; for basic income to be feasible in the US, there needs to be proper health care reform. I see that very difficult to happen anytime soon, even making non-competes unenforceable is gonna be hard let alone introducing a national health service.
The US will be an altogether different challenge; for basic income to be feasible in the US, there needs to be proper health care reform. I see that very difficult to happen anytime soon, even making non-competes unenforceable is gonna be hard let alone introducing a national health service.
My US colleagues tell me that if you are genuinely poor in the US then healthcare is already de facto free. I suspect that it might not be quite the same degree of care as someone who's insurance company is paying though.
Eh, you can get emergency care or go to an emergency room as a doctor and not get turned away, but the bill still follows you. Additionally getting any sort of preventative medicine is basically impossible. When I was poor right out of college I had health insurance and was still denied coverage on a prescribed medication because it was available over the counter. Even though the OTC price was 3 times my copay for prescribed medications. When you are poor that means you just don't get any healthcare until you in a pretty bad way
That really highlights the problem of getting information from someone who has only second hand information themselves. I'm glad you put me right, but sad to see that what, I think, most of us Europeans believe about US medical care appears to be true: that it is cruel and unfair.
Lots of infrastructure work needs doing.
We could also shave work weeks back to 20 hours and subsidize the rest.
We could also shave work weeks back to 20 hours and subsidize the rest.
So basic income + penance.
A WPA-style infrastructure program isn't the worst idea, but yes, eventually you're going to run out of useful work to be done. The <5% unemployment that's managed to sustain a capitalist society seems like a quirk of history.
Self driving cars are more than a "few years" out. All fully automated proofs of concept so far operate in light traffic with clear skies and high quality roads. These conditions are not prevalent in most of the US.
I believe that even truckers will be safe well into the next decade. They don't add all that much cost to the overall costs of shipping goods (when compared to fuel, maintenance, and insurance).
I believe that even truckers will be safe well into the next decade. They don't add all that much cost to the overall costs of shipping goods (when compared to fuel, maintenance, and insurance).
This random article puts the driver at $0.36 out of $1.38:
http://www.findatruckingjob.com/trucking-info/trucking-artic...
That's pretty substantial. If you have 2x the utilization on a cheaper to operate vehicle, that's where new investment is going to go. Or take a retrofit kit. It can cost ~$80,000 and be a pretty obvious investment to make.
http://www.findatruckingjob.com/trucking-info/trucking-artic...
That's pretty substantial. If you have 2x the utilization on a cheaper to operate vehicle, that's where new investment is going to go. Or take a retrofit kit. It can cost ~$80,000 and be a pretty obvious investment to make.
That 36 cents also seems to be a direct salary cost, there would be other overheads to employment.
And I note that the biggest cost is diesel. I wonder if self driving trucks would be more fuel efficient?
And I note that the biggest cost is diesel. I wonder if self driving trucks would be more fuel efficient?
Interesting. I've researched this in the past and found that this number per mile varies between 5¢ and 30¢ per mile, and that it's usually charged out at $2.50 a mile split between the owners of the load.
Even at your 36¢ per mile, that only amounts to a savings of $150 on a $1,000 bill to move a truck of goods 400 miles. Given that the value of a truck full of bananas is around $50,000, that $150 savings is a rounding error (especially since the AI won't be free).
Even at your 36¢ per mile, that only amounts to a savings of $150 on a $1,000 bill to move a truck of goods 400 miles. Given that the value of a truck full of bananas is around $50,000, that $150 savings is a rounding error (especially since the AI won't be free).
The $50,000 doesn't have much to do with it, people looking to replace/expand trucking capacity will look at the $850 and $1000 and only choose the $1000 if there is some other factor that is similarly significant. Even if existing shippers are conservative, someone will definitely try to use a 10% advantage.
It's also the case that the shipper is looking at how much they can make by moving the bananas, which is probably less than the wholesale cost of the bananas. So the $150 is more significant to them than the $50,000 suggests.
These ads are saying $0.50 a mile for moderate experience:
http://www.indeed.com/q-Cent-Per-Mile-Otr-Driver-jobs.html
I think between variable fuel costs and the up and down market for shipping that a given article won't be very reliable for today, but something like "a substantial portion of $1-$3 per mile" is good enough for discussion.
It's also the case that the shipper is looking at how much they can make by moving the bananas, which is probably less than the wholesale cost of the bananas. So the $150 is more significant to them than the $50,000 suggests.
These ads are saying $0.50 a mile for moderate experience:
http://www.indeed.com/q-Cent-Per-Mile-Otr-Driver-jobs.html
I think between variable fuel costs and the up and down market for shipping that a given article won't be very reliable for today, but something like "a substantial portion of $1-$3 per mile" is good enough for discussion.
I hope you are right, but the progress with deep learning and AI has snowballed in the last few years. At least that's my perception.
> I believe that even truckers will be safe well into the next decade. They don't add all that much cost to the overall costs of shipping goods
I do not know about the US, but in Europe labour costs are high and there are laws on number of hours that truckers can work. Self-driving trucks can be on the road 24 hours a day all year round, with no unions or human resources to manage.
> I believe that even truckers will be safe well into the next decade. They don't add all that much cost to the overall costs of shipping goods
I do not know about the US, but in Europe labour costs are high and there are laws on number of hours that truckers can work. Self-driving trucks can be on the road 24 hours a day all year round, with no unions or human resources to manage.
No human resources? Who's gonna fill up the tank?
Fewer human resources, certainly.
But humans are very flexible. In the containerised shipping world that doesn't add huge value, but for a taxi some flexibility is a value-add, be it changing your mind about your destination or falling ill suddenly (when you probably can't just log in and change your destination) are examples of when people are well served by human operators.
Self automation has to become cheap enough that the premium of having people drive is worth losing compared to the price difference. It isn't enough to just have tje technology at a level it can serve.
Fewer human resources, certainly.
But humans are very flexible. In the containerised shipping world that doesn't add huge value, but for a taxi some flexibility is a value-add, be it changing your mind about your destination or falling ill suddenly (when you probably can't just log in and change your destination) are examples of when people are well served by human operators.
Self automation has to become cheap enough that the premium of having people drive is worth losing compared to the price difference. It isn't enough to just have tje technology at a level it can serve.
Fewer people would likely die from falling ill suddenly and undetected than currently perish from human-caused accidents. I suspect fewer would perish from sudden medical events in cars overall as a medical event no longer means a likely crash.
Self-driving trucks will lower the mortality rate and the insurance premiums as well as increase the utilisation of assets - trucks and storage.
Functional self-driving trucks*
That's the crux of the issue. People need to stop acting like we have self-driving cars. We don't. Once we do (a few years out, at least), THEN our governments will start figuring out how to deal with it.
And by "governments," the plural is important. Remember that every single jurisdiction that a driverless car goes through must approve of them. And for long haul truckers? That's hundreds of jurisdictions for any given route.
That's the crux of the issue. People need to stop acting like we have self-driving cars. We don't. Once we do (a few years out, at least), THEN our governments will start figuring out how to deal with it.
And by "governments," the plural is important. Remember that every single jurisdiction that a driverless car goes through must approve of them. And for long haul truckers? That's hundreds of jurisdictions for any given route.
I don't think the insurance will go down all that much; the cost of a lost $50,000 load of bananas and $150,000 worth of truck/trailer is not going to change because of even a 50% reduction in crashes.
Plus, why would insurance companies actively work to lower their profits? ;)
Plus, why would insurance companies actively work to lower their profits? ;)
Not sure about the US, but in the UK and EU drivers have a limited number of hours they can drive per day. When the clock runs out, they have to stop. That won't be the case with self driving vehicles as they won't get tired. I would think this alone would revolutionize the logistics industry, without any other factors.
The US also has limits, but you can go a long ways in 11 hours. And when a load really needs to get moved, you can get up to 22 hours with tandem drivers.
The cost of drivers in relation to the value of the cargo being moved is usually a rounding error.
The cost of drivers in relation to the value of the cargo being moved is usually a rounding error.
>>unrest and the rise of populist demagogues who will be much better (worse) candidates than Trump.
you do realize that it's the "democrats" who are promising free stuff to the masses by "taking moar moneys from the evuhl 1%". Doesn't get much more divisive and populist then that.
So now on the "republican" side there is also some level of exploiting of the archetypal beliefs that can be considered "populism", such as the ubiquitous "wall on the border" but that carries very little targeted appeal to the unemployed or poor segment of the populace per se.
you do realize that it's the "democrats" who are promising free stuff to the masses by "taking moar moneys from the evuhl 1%". Doesn't get much more divisive and populist then that.
So now on the "republican" side there is also some level of exploiting of the archetypal beliefs that can be considered "populism", such as the ubiquitous "wall on the border" but that carries very little targeted appeal to the unemployed or poor segment of the populace per se.
The traditional taxi drivers in UK are already classified as independent contractors.[1]
If Uber wanted to stay in the UK market, what would be the minimum they would have to do so that the Uber drivers are considered "contractors"? Is it just letting the drivers set their own fares?
In other words, if sellers on ebay are not employees of ebay and programmers submitting apps to Apple iTunes Store are not employees of Apple, what does Uber need to do so they are considered a platform instead of an employer?
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-...
If Uber wanted to stay in the UK market, what would be the minimum they would have to do so that the Uber drivers are considered "contractors"? Is it just letting the drivers set their own fares?
In other words, if sellers on ebay are not employees of ebay and programmers submitting apps to Apple iTunes Store are not employees of Apple, what does Uber need to do so they are considered a platform instead of an employer?
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70025-...
Apple doesn't tell developers which apps they must develop. They don't insist that all development work is done by the named person. eBay doesn't tell sellers what they have to sell, nor boot them off for listing things that don't sell. App developers and eBay sellers can choose their price, and what they're selling. Uber drivers can do neither. If they're "on duty", they must accept rides or be penalised, and must charge the price set by Uber.
The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/asla...
Page 29 gives a good summary of the reasons that point towards the drivers being workers.
The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/asla...
Page 29 gives a good summary of the reasons that point towards the drivers being workers.
But how many enterprise shops hire contract developers, hand them a laptop and cubicle and say be here from 9-5.
And in the UK if the contractor is self-employed they are at risk if being caught by IR-35: http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/what_is_ir35_rules_explaine...
IR-35 is employment duck-typing. If it walks, talks, and quacks like an employee, then it's an employee and should be taxed as such, even if it claims it's an independent contractor.
IR-35 is employment duck-typing. If it walks, talks, and quacks like an employee, then it's an employee and should be taxed as such, even if it claims it's an independent contractor.
Isn't the tech industry notorious for abusing contractor law to avoid paying for things that are required for their employees, particularly startups?
Usually in this case the developer is an employee of another company (this company can tell them what to do) and the first business is paying the second for this developers time.
Being employed via 1 or more companies is not protection. The UK government is persuing people who were hired as contractors via a staffing agency which then encouraged them to set up a personal Ltd company.
Typically these contractors pay themselves a mixture of dividends and normal paye pay to minimise tax, and the gov is saying the dividends were never really dividends so they need to pay tax and ni on them including the employers ni.
Currently this is limited to specific staffing agencies who actively instructed new contractors to create a personal company but I don't think it will stop there.
I've long felt most contractors are well within ir35 and it has been tollerated. This may be ending.
Typically these contractors pay themselves a mixture of dividends and normal paye pay to minimise tax, and the gov is saying the dividends were never really dividends so they need to pay tax and ni on them including the employers ni.
Currently this is limited to specific staffing agencies who actively instructed new contractors to create a personal company but I don't think it will stop there.
I've long felt most contractors are well within ir35 and it has been tollerated. This may be ending.
They'll get paid at much at more competitive rates though.
English law recognises that there is a continuum between obviously employed and obviously self-employed, but the categorisation in any particular case will be down to the reality of the actual relationship between the employer/contracting company and its staff/contractors. There's no bright line, edge cases are ruled on case-by-case in the tribunal, as here.
The actual criteria are pretty complicated - see the guidance manual at https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-status-m... - but the essence of it is control ("does the boss have the right to tell the worker what, where, when and how to work?"), personal service/substitutability ("can the worker send someone else to do the job, instead of doing it himself?"), risk ("who is on the hook if something goes wrong?") and some other factors. Very fact-specific.
Incidentally, one of the standard features of traditional taxi drivers in the UK is that they don't set their fares, that being the responsibility of the local government. Uber drivers are licensed in the separate category of 'private hire', which has less stringent licensing (and the right for a firm to set its own fares) but a prohibition on picking up passengers by being hailed, and some other restrictions.
The actual criteria are pretty complicated - see the guidance manual at https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-status-m... - but the essence of it is control ("does the boss have the right to tell the worker what, where, when and how to work?"), personal service/substitutability ("can the worker send someone else to do the job, instead of doing it himself?"), risk ("who is on the hook if something goes wrong?") and some other factors. Very fact-specific.
Incidentally, one of the standard features of traditional taxi drivers in the UK is that they don't set their fares, that being the responsibility of the local government. Uber drivers are licensed in the separate category of 'private hire', which has less stringent licensing (and the right for a firm to set its own fares) but a prohibition on picking up passengers by being hailed, and some other restrictions.
> English law recognises that there is a continuum between obviously employed and obviously self-employed
Very similar here in Germany, I guess. There is the term "Scheinselbstständig", which roughly translates to "fake self-employed". If you are formally self-employed but meet certain criteria, your "customer" (who is then considered to be more your employer than a customer) has certain obligations to you, and you have certain rights, which you can't easily trade away.
Very similar here in Germany, I guess. There is the term "Scheinselbstständig", which roughly translates to "fake self-employed". If you are formally self-employed but meet certain criteria, your "customer" (who is then considered to be more your employer than a customer) has certain obligations to you, and you have certain rights, which you can't easily trade away.
I was "self-employed" ("Freiberufler") and working for a US startup 100% of my billable hours. They hadn't formed a company in Germany at that point, so I just send them a bill and paid the employer and employee part of my health insurance.
I got some letters about that and they asked me to prove that I was indeed self-employed. They didn't like the argument and concluded that I wasn't. The only thing that actually happened after a while is that I had to pay into the public retirement fund against my will. The "Deutsche Rentenversicherung" are seemingly the only people that care. From what I can tell there were no other obligations/rights that appeared after.
I got some letters about that and they asked me to prove that I was indeed self-employed. They didn't like the argument and concluded that I wasn't. The only thing that actually happened after a while is that I had to pay into the public retirement fund against my will. The "Deutsche Rentenversicherung" are seemingly the only people that care. From what I can tell there were no other obligations/rights that appeared after.
I'm not a lawyer, but what I remember from talking with self-employed family members:
There are different parts of German law/government that are affected, retirement is only one of them (and just because one authority noticed/thinks you qualify doesn't automatically mean that the others do).
Tax avoidance (since payroll taxes on your salary weren't paid) is another angle.
For the employer, not paying their part in your social security contributions is similar to not paying you your full salary, and thus a criminal matter as well.
There are different parts of German law/government that are affected, retirement is only one of them (and just because one authority noticed/thinks you qualify doesn't automatically mean that the others do).
Tax avoidance (since payroll taxes on your salary weren't paid) is another angle.
For the employer, not paying their part in your social security contributions is similar to not paying you your full salary, and thus a criminal matter as well.
In the UK (and also in, for example, Poland) self-employed people pay much lower taxes than the employees - hence we're all very happy to trade away our rights.
I believe you are thinking of people who set up companies and pay themselves through dividends (which have a much lower tax rate), which is now (highly controversially) illegal -- search for "IR35".
Ordinary self-employed people and sole traders pay nearly the same tax rates as employed people (National Insurance, a strange disguised tax, is at a different rate), but have many fewer rights, eg. no right to paid time off or sick pay.
The question in this case is whether Uber drivers are self-employed or not. Not as it turns out.
Ordinary self-employed people and sole traders pay nearly the same tax rates as employed people (National Insurance, a strange disguised tax, is at a different rate), but have many fewer rights, eg. no right to paid time off or sick pay.
The question in this case is whether Uber drivers are self-employed or not. Not as it turns out.
> pay themselves through dividends (which have a much lower tax rate), which is now (highly controversially) illegal
What on earth are you talking about... taking out dividends is not illegal, even for individual company owners. IR35 is about HMRC forcing self employed people to apply payroll taxes as if they were employed. Again, nothing to do with dividends.
What on earth are you talking about... taking out dividends is not illegal, even for individual company owners. IR35 is about HMRC forcing self employed people to apply payroll taxes as if they were employed. Again, nothing to do with dividends.
But that has a social impact. You might be chuckling to yourself over how much NI you're not paying, but if you are injured the NHS will still treat you, and the money has to come from somewhere.
That's interesting, in the US it is the opposite, although you might be able to write off certain things as expenses so your overall taxable income is lower.
>English law recognises that there is a continuum [...] There's no bright line, edge cases are ruled on case-by-case in the tribunal,
Sure, I understand that. USA law is fuzzy in the same way. (The IRS 20 rules[1] are guidelines and not binary true false criteria usable for perfect machine learning classification.)
But for the sake of discussion purposes on HN, I'd like for you or anyone to play the role of general counsel for Uber and say exactly and concretely what they would need to do.
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=irs+20+rules
Sure, I understand that. USA law is fuzzy in the same way. (The IRS 20 rules[1] are guidelines and not binary true false criteria usable for perfect machine learning classification.)
But for the sake of discussion purposes on HN, I'd like for you or anyone to play the role of general counsel for Uber and say exactly and concretely what they would need to do.
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=irs+20+rules
I'm not a lawyer; my exposure to employment law came in a previous existence as a workplace union rep and this is somewhat outside my expertise.
As I understand it, if the Uber driver were allowed to have someone else drive their car for Uber when they felt like it, and had the freedom (actual, not nominal) to decide which clients they'd like to take on, and had control of their pricing, then there would be no question it was actual self-employment.
As I understand it, if the Uber driver were allowed to have someone else drive their car for Uber when they felt like it, and had the freedom (actual, not nominal) to decide which clients they'd like to take on, and had control of their pricing, then there would be no question it was actual self-employment.
Or, they could:
* Give them basic rest breaks
* Give them basic holiday
* Pay them the minimum wage
Remember, they're not employees, they're workers.
[edit - I'd be very interested to know why this is downvoted, these are the things afaik that they are required to do for workers (who are distinct from employees)]
* Give them basic rest breaks
* Give them basic holiday
* Pay them the minimum wage
Remember, they're not employees, they're workers.
[edit - I'd be very interested to know why this is downvoted, these are the things afaik that they are required to do for workers (who are distinct from employees)]
There seems to be an assumption of full-time drivers implicit in your message. Uber drivers may only be driving a couple of hours a month. What does rest mean when someone can stop working at any time?
The positive I see in the so-called gig economy is far more flexibility in employing underutilised labour. If government increases the transaction costs of employing underutilised labour, then it will probably stop employing underutilised labour. It could easily be a net negative.
If there's an efficient way of working it out - i.e. keeping the transaction costs low - I'm not against regulating Uber as an employer. But it is a different form of working, and it's the kind of working that connected communication technology is best positioned to enable. It would be best if we didn't crush it under an assumption of regular employment.
The positive I see in the so-called gig economy is far more flexibility in employing underutilised labour. If government increases the transaction costs of employing underutilised labour, then it will probably stop employing underutilised labour. It could easily be a net negative.
If there's an efficient way of working it out - i.e. keeping the transaction costs low - I'm not against regulating Uber as an employer. But it is a different form of working, and it's the kind of working that connected communication technology is best positioned to enable. It would be best if we didn't crush it under an assumption of regular employment.
It's really not a different form of working, we've had irregular gig-like work for a long time. That's rather why the "worker" status exists as distinct from "employee". Just because you throw in an app or tech doesn't make it any different.
> What does rest mean when someone can stop working at any time?
It means that once you've been working for a given period of time you get a short period of (paid) time-off. A few lines of code in the scheduler to not assign work for 15 minutes to people in this position, and a corresponding credit in the billing system, would do.
The point applies more generally. I had a zero-hours contract with my university to teach very irregular hours on some IT training courses. I was entitled to holiday pay like every other worker. It accrued at a rate of something like one hour for every ten hours I worked, and was added to my pay.
This form of working isn't in any way new; piecework, home working, day labour and similar things have existed for as long as employment law has, and there are low friction solutions already in place to make meal breaks, holidays and minimum wage calculations work. The tribunal judges here specifically ruled on when Uber drivers are working (in licensed area with app switched on) so everything else is pretty straightforward from an implementation point of view.
It means that once you've been working for a given period of time you get a short period of (paid) time-off. A few lines of code in the scheduler to not assign work for 15 minutes to people in this position, and a corresponding credit in the billing system, would do.
The point applies more generally. I had a zero-hours contract with my university to teach very irregular hours on some IT training courses. I was entitled to holiday pay like every other worker. It accrued at a rate of something like one hour for every ten hours I worked, and was added to my pay.
This form of working isn't in any way new; piecework, home working, day labour and similar things have existed for as long as employment law has, and there are low friction solutions already in place to make meal breaks, holidays and minimum wage calculations work. The tribunal judges here specifically ruled on when Uber drivers are working (in licensed area with app switched on) so everything else is pretty straightforward from an implementation point of view.
[deleted]
> The positive I see in the so-called gig economy is far more flexibility in employing underutilised labour.
That flexibility is nothing more than shifting risk from the employer, who is most able to handle it, to the employee, who is least able to handle it.
That flexibility is nothing more than shifting risk from the employer, who is most able to handle it, to the employee, who is least able to handle it.
I'm not sure I understand how it's supposed to work. Say, somebody drives for Uber 2 hours per month. So, Uber must pay them whatever is minimal per-hour pay in UK, even if they had no rides but just were available for 2 hours? Then, they also have to pay them for holidays? How many hours? That doesn't sound like sane business model - pay for a whole workday on holiday to somebody that otherwise worked couple of hours per month.
> Then, they also have to pay them for holidays? How many hours?
Simple, it's scaled for how long you work. 2 hours per.month would mean they also have to pay you for 2 hours 53 minutes per year of holiday.
Really, uber are not the only company that hires people for irregular work. This stuff has all been worked out a long time ago.
> That doesn't sound like sane business model -
It's just paying people to work for you, hardly a crazy business model.
Simple, it's scaled for how long you work. 2 hours per.month would mean they also have to pay you for 2 hours 53 minutes per year of holiday.
Really, uber are not the only company that hires people for irregular work. This stuff has all been worked out a long time ago.
> That doesn't sound like sane business model -
It's just paying people to work for you, hardly a crazy business model.
> 2 hours per.month would mean they also have to pay you for 2 hours 53 minutes per year of holiday.
But the money is paid for driving people around, not for being there. So where 53 minutes come from?
> It's just paying people to work for you, hardly a crazy business model.
Nope, it's paying people to work for you and also paying money just because. If somebody works for you for 2 hours and you have to pay for 2 hours and 53 minutes that's not paying for work.
But the money is paid for driving people around, not for being there. So where 53 minutes come from?
> It's just paying people to work for you, hardly a crazy business model.
Nope, it's paying people to work for you and also paying money just because. If somebody works for you for 2 hours and you have to pay for 2 hours and 53 minutes that's not paying for work.
> So, Uber must pay them whatever is minimal per-hour pay in UK, even if they had no rides but just were available for 2 hours?
Yup. The tribunal judge ruled that, as having drivers waiting around with the app turned on was an essential part of Uber's operations, their workers were doing work for Uber while waiting and in a position to take calls.
This is analogous to call centres: the operator can't just tell its workers that they're 'not at work' and not pay them when they're logged in and waiting for inbound calls.
Of course, mostly this matters for minimum wage calculations. As long as Uber have sent the driver a handful of trips in these two hours they'll have to pay no extra.
Yup. The tribunal judge ruled that, as having drivers waiting around with the app turned on was an essential part of Uber's operations, their workers were doing work for Uber while waiting and in a position to take calls.
This is analogous to call centres: the operator can't just tell its workers that they're 'not at work' and not pay them when they're logged in and waiting for inbound calls.
Of course, mostly this matters for minimum wage calculations. As long as Uber have sent the driver a handful of trips in these two hours they'll have to pay no extra.
Call centers explicitly pay for being there. That's their job description - being there and being ready to answer calls. That's the whole purpose of call centers - so that you have a phone that you can be sure there's a person waiting on it for your call. That's not what Uber is doing.
It's like I would call an electrician and he'd charge me for a month of work because he sat there for a month being available for my call, it's not his fault I called only now! Would you hire such an electrician? To me it sounds insane.
> As long as Uber have sent the driver a handful of trips in these two hours they'll have to pay no extra.
This makes even less sense. If "being available" has monetary value, as you claim, why this monetary value does not have to be paid regardless of additional monetary value of driving around? If, as you claim, being on call is a separate payable service, it should be charged in the same whatever happened after.
It sounds like this argument is not genuine and is just dragged in to arrive at predetermined conclusion about minimum wage, but as soon as this is not a concern, this argument is discarded completely.
It's like I would call an electrician and he'd charge me for a month of work because he sat there for a month being available for my call, it's not his fault I called only now! Would you hire such an electrician? To me it sounds insane.
> As long as Uber have sent the driver a handful of trips in these two hours they'll have to pay no extra.
This makes even less sense. If "being available" has monetary value, as you claim, why this monetary value does not have to be paid regardless of additional monetary value of driving around? If, as you claim, being on call is a separate payable service, it should be charged in the same whatever happened after.
It sounds like this argument is not genuine and is just dragged in to arrive at predetermined conclusion about minimum wage, but as soon as this is not a concern, this argument is discarded completely.
I hope I'm not sounding too milton friedman-y here, but even if Uber's business model is dependent on circumventing labor laws to depress wages, in the case it goes under it won't be Uber drivers to benefit the most from it, but medallion owning companies and cab drivers.
I think uber going under would lead to a bunch of other competitors entering the market and (hopefully) following the law a little better.
How about we import enough H1B workers to replace you and collapse wages, see how long youll think like that
The UK doesn't have a medallion system
Yes we do, they're the plates that are required to be displayed on both Black Cabs and Private Hire.
In some areas they're quite valuable and sell for £30k+ (without the car to attach it to).
In some areas they're quite valuable and sell for £30k+ (without the car to attach it to).
Private hire licencing is the responsibility of local authorities and probably varies. In many places, they're easy to get, though; Transport for London seem to have no limit on numbers and a fee of £100 a year - https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...
Oh I know, but some areas still restrict licenses and it can lead to the ridiculous costs. Not sure how wide restrictions are, just that they're much less common than they used to be!
I did not know that but i was thinking of the London black cabs which don't
We have black cabs which is just as bad.
There aren't medallions in the UK; the supply of taxi/private hire drivers is slightly restricted by licensing requirements (which are pretty loose for private hire drivers in particular) but otherwise it's already an open market.
This isn't market competition, it's an attempt at regulatory circumvention - getting tight control over your drivers while claiming them to be autonomous and self-employed to avoid minimum wages and the payment of National Insurance contributions and sick pay - which seems to have failed.
This isn't market competition, it's an attempt at regulatory circumvention - getting tight control over your drivers while claiming them to be autonomous and self-employed to avoid minimum wages and the payment of National Insurance contributions and sick pay - which seems to have failed.
This isn't an employee rights case. The only winner in this case is not employees but other Taxi services. If I were an Uber driver I don't want to be an employee. I want to be a contractor that can turn his app on or off at will.
The judgment is clear that these are not mutually exclusive. In this case they've ruled that a driver is a worker during the period when they are logged-in to the app and ready to accept rides. They're still able to close the app, at which point they are no longer working.
Which doesn't make sense for an employer to continue to allow. If I have to pay start to pay for the fringe benefits of being an employee then I want the guarantees that come along with that. So I am going to want to have tighter control over when and where you are working and dictate more of your working conditions.
The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. If I have to pay you a minimum wage when you have your app on then you better believe I won't allow you to have two apps running at the same time. This is a net loss for people who were just trying to make some money being a driver.
The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom. If I have to pay you a minimum wage when you have your app on then you better believe I won't allow you to have two apps running at the same time. This is a net loss for people who were just trying to make some money being a driver.
If they control more, they're likely to move the relationship from "worker" to "employee" which comes with a lot more responsibilities on ubers part.
> The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom.
Which is fine, if they actually have the freedom. The problem is that uber want freedom on their side, but then heavily control the workers, that's why the ruling came through like this.
> The beauty of the independent contractor model is that it gives the contractor freedom.
Which is fine, if they actually have the freedom. The problem is that uber want freedom on their side, but then heavily control the workers, that's why the ruling came through like this.
The point of this ruling is that Uber already does loads of things that only an employer would normally be able to do. That independent contractor flexibility just isn't there anyway. It sure as hell isn't employment law stopping Uber from setting a rule that prevents drivers from running two apps at once. In any case that's not really an issue in the UK, where there aren't any direct competitors such as Lyft.
I would disagree with the assertion that they do things only an employer can do ( which I understand means I am firmly wrong in the sight of UK law ), I would rather Uber can set additional rules in exchange for additional flexibility for the contractor.
What I see in this ruling is that the "solution" seems to be make the contractors employees instead of give the contractors liberty to self direct more.
What I see in this ruling is that the "solution" seems to be make the contractors employees instead of give the contractors liberty to self direct more.
If Uber wrote a new contract, with greater autonomy and less direction for its drivers, it's quite possible that it would be upheld as genuine self-employment; the ruling covers the workers' current arrangements. So that route is feasible if Uber is willing to cede its control. I think that somewhat unlikely.
Probably want to add "in the UK" to the title.
I just used the title of the article at the time I submitted the link.
I don't see why the current title is incorrect. Not everything in the world happens in the US.
There are a lot of commenters who are misunderstanding the implications for this. This doesn't mean that every platform is now an employer. This case just happens to have many, many reasons that point to the drivers being workers not contractors. It's worth reading the judgment, but they have a useful summary of the points:
The contradiction in the Rider Terms between the fact that ULL purports to
be the drivers' agent and its assertion of "sole and absolute discretion" to
accept or decline bookings.
The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers.
The fact that Uber controls the key information (in particular the passenger's
surname contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver
from it
The fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips,
and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those
requirements.
The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver departs from it at
his peril.
The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the driver cannot agree a higher sum
with the passenger. (The supposed freedom to agree a lower fare is
obviously nugatory.)
The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the
limited choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their
work and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their
duties.
The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what
amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure.
The fact that Uber determines issues about rebates, sometimes without
even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected.
The guaranteed earnings schemes (albeit now discontinued).
The fact that Uber accepts the risk of loss which, if the drivers were
genuinely in business on their own account, would fall upon them.
The fact that Uber handles complaints by passengers, including complaints
about the driver.
The fact that Uber reserves the power to amend the drivers' terms
unilaterally.
Why would you put interesting information in a pre tag? This is what your comment looks like on mobile - completely unreadable
http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GKkF44j.jpg
I didn't put it in a pre tag. HN did that because there are spaces at the beginning of the lines that I copied and pasted from the OCR text.
You chose to post it like that.
Mate, I read the judgment and when I realised lots of people misunderstood the ruling I went to the trouble of finding the most informative section. I then OCR'd the page (which was a scan, so I couldn't cut and paste) so I could share it. Pardon me for not then spending even more time manually reformatting a whole page of text. If you find it so hard, you're welcome to click on the link to the original that I also included.
You did all that work and couldn't bother to take the 5 seconds it needs for any half-decent text editor to re-wrap your paragraphs?
Pretty much these facts would apply to any value-add collaboration platform that serves as middle-man between customer and whoever executes the task. Most of them screen their contractors and have preconditions, have ratings, many of them have provisions to shield both sides from dishonest players, many of them have incentives and rebates to attract customers, most of them handle complaints (of course they do, the customer paid money to them, who they'd complain to if something is wrong? Whoever got the money!), etc.
That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.
That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.
If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer.
> That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.
No, only ones that have a large degree of control over how the work is done and over the interaction with the customer, including all pricing. Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these and nor would etsy.
And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Paid holiday (pro-rata, there are already easy ways of calculating the amount owed to irregular workers), rest breaks, minimum wage and possibly a contribution to a pension scheme. These are all requirements of small employers at the moment so it's not a huge thing.
> That means pretty much any added-value marketplace is now considered employer in UK, thus the whole model becomes infeasible.
No, only ones that have a large degree of control over how the work is done and over the interaction with the customer, including all pricing. Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these and nor would etsy.
And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much. Paid holiday (pro-rata, there are already easy ways of calculating the amount owed to irregular workers), rest breaks, minimum wage and possibly a contribution to a pension scheme. These are all requirements of small employers at the moment so it's not a huge thing.
> If the platform controls how and when the work is done, doesn't allow subcontracting, and is in full control of the price, then that sounds like the platform isn't a middle man but an employer.
The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven.
Most collaboration platforms - like TaskRabbit for example - don't allow subcontracting. And for a reason - if I asked for John, 5*, proficient in electrical work and general handyman work, many positive reviews, and Anthony shows up instead, I don't want him - I don't know him and don't trust him.
> is in full control of the price
Many such platforms have pre-set hourly or per-task rates. Such us Fiverr.
> Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these
Fiverr is literally named after a fixed $5 rate.
> And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much.
Especially if you're not the one paying them.
The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven.
Most collaboration platforms - like TaskRabbit for example - don't allow subcontracting. And for a reason - if I asked for John, 5*, proficient in electrical work and general handyman work, many positive reviews, and Anthony shows up instead, I don't want him - I don't know him and don't trust him.
> is in full control of the price
Many such platforms have pre-set hourly or per-task rates. Such us Fiverr.
> Fiverr, for example, really doesn't meet these
Fiverr is literally named after a fixed $5 rate.
> And really, the requirements on employing workers isn't much.
Especially if you're not the one paying them.
> Fiverr is literally named after a fixed $5 rate.
Which is not forced, no? I opened fiverr and can see quite a range of different rates.
Fiverr allows subcontracting, or at least it happens, and I choose the person who works for me. With uber I don't pick a specific driver, I just order a taxi.
> The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven.
If you go down this route of logic, shop workers are self-employed because they don't have to forcibly sell items to customers, only selling the things the customer wants. It's worth reading the judgement to see just how controlling uber are in the UK with their drivers, and why they were found to be workers.
> Especially if you're not the one paying them.
Holiday, rest and minimum wage all come under the amount they say drivers get on average anyway (together add up to about half what they say drivers get). Payroll is a pretty simple task that even small businesses are required to do. Worker status doesn't confer that many rights, far fewer than "employee".
Which is not forced, no? I opened fiverr and can see quite a range of different rates.
Fiverr allows subcontracting, or at least it happens, and I choose the person who works for me. With uber I don't pick a specific driver, I just order a taxi.
> The client controls how and when the work is done. Uber can't just send a driver to drive somebody - somebody has to actually ask to be driven.
If you go down this route of logic, shop workers are self-employed because they don't have to forcibly sell items to customers, only selling the things the customer wants. It's worth reading the judgement to see just how controlling uber are in the UK with their drivers, and why they were found to be workers.
> Especially if you're not the one paying them.
Holiday, rest and minimum wage all come under the amount they say drivers get on average anyway (together add up to about half what they say drivers get). Payroll is a pretty simple task that even small businesses are required to do. Worker status doesn't confer that many rights, far fewer than "employee".
[deleted]
I think the issue that many readers have difficulties with is that rulings like this show how arbitrary and potentially political the regulations are. For instance, many heavily regulated professions in the USA (and probably the UK) could be classified as government employees by this definition, but they are not. Taxi drivers could even be seen as employees of their cities, as I know that London taxi cab drivers suffer conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 at the hands of their local government.
It's very important to understand here that they are not employees but workers. There is a significant distinction in UK law.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
Do I understand this right, that "worker" status is somewhere between employee and contractor, in terms of the employer obligation to them? Less obligations than to an employee, but more than to a contractor?
Pretty much, yes. It's the lowest level of rights given to a worker pretty much, whereas someone who is self-employed is essentially treated as a company with a contract. There's a big difference in both rights and freedoms.
Why does Uber not allow its drivers to set fares? Wouldn't that be the true "Ayn Rand approach" to a marketplace?
It would be cool if, as a rider, I could set a maximum fare I'm willing to pay, the drivers can bid on the fare, and I'm matched with some combination of nearestDriver * lowestFare.
I imagine Uber has thought of this already, so there must be some reason they're not doing it. Why?
Classic economics suggests this would result in a more efficient market. Perhaps Uber has modeled it and found it would also result in lower fares.
It would be cool if, as a rider, I could set a maximum fare I'm willing to pay, the drivers can bid on the fare, and I'm matched with some combination of nearestDriver * lowestFare.
I imagine Uber has thought of this already, so there must be some reason they're not doing it. Why?
Classic economics suggests this would result in a more efficient market. Perhaps Uber has modeled it and found it would also result in lower fares.
Classical economics usually take as assumptions that all actors have complete information and unlimited computational resources and are perfectly rational. In the real world, we have decision fatigue and may engage in regret avoidance and end up not taking Uber at all if it's perceived as more difficult.
This is a false assertion (and possibly a straw-man); Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" as a study of the way things actually worked, not a thought experiment. Classical economists (such as Smith) did not assume perfect information, and everyone knows that there is never perfect information.
Yes, the above poster is thinking of neoclassical economics. Classical economists like Smith, Ricardo, and Marx barely if at all touched on things like perfect information, rationality, or perfect competition. Those are all neoclassical paradigms.
That comes down to the "Nature of the Firm" dynamic[1]; there's a tradeoff between market efficiency and transaction costs, and every organization faces it.
You can e.g. ask the same question about "why not auction every shift?", "why not auction every internal work product transfer?" (extreme example: why not auction every fetch-coffee task?)
The answer is that having to re-auction every subcomponent introduces transaction costs that may eclipse the efficiency gains of selling at the optimal, market price.
In the case of Uber's drivers, that "transaction cost" includes the additional lag in taking bids before you get matched, and higher unpredictability of fares.
Of course, it actually gets kinda complicated here: Sidecar did more what you're describing, and (IIUIC) eliminated that lag by letter drivers submit a kind of formula that calculated and submitted their bid based on those factors (e.g distance to pickup), so it's not necessarily some kind of huge dealbreaker to do auctions; drivers don't have to sit down and scratch their heads about how much they'd need to do every request.[2]
Sidecar didn't succeed though -- they went out of business on this model (and keep in mind they had a much more solid defense of workers' contractor status for exactly this reason). But this might not have been the cause of their failure.
I'm guessing it comes down to there being a big premium on being able to (for lack of a better term) "commoditize" the ride hailing services so that eliminating such bidding was a net positive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
[2] though note that in Sidecar's case, driver's got a list of bids and consciously chose the one they liked based on their implicit criteria rather than being auto-matched
You can e.g. ask the same question about "why not auction every shift?", "why not auction every internal work product transfer?" (extreme example: why not auction every fetch-coffee task?)
The answer is that having to re-auction every subcomponent introduces transaction costs that may eclipse the efficiency gains of selling at the optimal, market price.
In the case of Uber's drivers, that "transaction cost" includes the additional lag in taking bids before you get matched, and higher unpredictability of fares.
Of course, it actually gets kinda complicated here: Sidecar did more what you're describing, and (IIUIC) eliminated that lag by letter drivers submit a kind of formula that calculated and submitted their bid based on those factors (e.g distance to pickup), so it's not necessarily some kind of huge dealbreaker to do auctions; drivers don't have to sit down and scratch their heads about how much they'd need to do every request.[2]
Sidecar didn't succeed though -- they went out of business on this model (and keep in mind they had a much more solid defense of workers' contractor status for exactly this reason). But this might not have been the cause of their failure.
I'm guessing it comes down to there being a big premium on being able to (for lack of a better term) "commoditize" the ride hailing services so that eliminating such bidding was a net positive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
[2] though note that in Sidecar's case, driver's got a list of bids and consciously chose the one they liked based on their implicit criteria rather than being auto-matched
I'm certainly no expert, but part of the initial appeal of Uber to me was the price simplicity. There was no tipping, I didn't have to hand anybody any money or worry about what credit card they accepted. I just got a cab. Now that they have the thing where it tells you how much your fare WOULD be given an address, it's even better. The surge stuff makes this worse, but at least I understand the idea. Having me bid for a taxi trip ala priceline would pretty much ruin Uber for me.
I don't like to put words in other people's minds, or thoughts in their heads, but I would hazard to guess that Uber has set prices for the sake of stability, and to give the users (drivers and passengers) some expectation of what fares might look like on a 'normal' day. It may be that as more users join the platform, it could be transitioned to a bid/ask model.
A bid/ask model may lead to more efficient pricing, but could increase transaction costs and lead to a less efficient overall market. I do not know whether this is the case, and it would be difficult to test, though Uber and Lyft are in a very good position to test.
A bid/ask model may lead to more efficient pricing, but could increase transaction costs and lead to a less efficient overall market. I do not know whether this is the case, and it would be difficult to test, though Uber and Lyft are in a very good position to test.
It won't tho' - you'll end up with the wedding photographer model - where new entrants operate at a loss to build a portfolio, then when they want to start charging the established rate, they are in turn undercut by new entrants. It's a brutal market, and a race to the bottom.
> Uber has set prices for the sake of stability
Uber forces price instability with "Surge Pricing".
Uber forces price instability with "Surge Pricing".
Couldn't each driver just propose a fare and let the customer accept it?
Yes, that would be an ask-only model. The issue there would be that the customers would have to select from a list, where the list composition was constantly changing (in busy areas). People might also be hesitant to user an app if they have no idea what it will cost. These issues would probably be solvable or solved, as I'm sure prices would stabilize in busy markets, and people would probably be willing to accept any price under $X; transaction costs would still be higher than with the current Uber/Lyft model.
I really dont think it would be a big bother. Most of the time the drivers would accept Uber's proposed price, and i really see no big issue with selecting a driver/fare from a list. IT would also create a entire market for "uber fare optimization".
An open market should also exist, but for branded products I'd prefer consistency over slight potential savings.
That's the difference between Uber and craigslist.
That's the difference between Uber and craigslist.
I would not want to use that. That sounds beyond annoying, trying to guess the lowest fare that will be accepted.
I recently got my first smartphone and the main reason was to have access to Uber. Prices are 1/2 to 1/3 of taxis, with better availability. I'm not sure the pricing is sustainable and feel many drivers are just using Uber sell a fraction of their late model vehicle along with a small bonus.
The other day I grabbed an Uber from Pleasanton to Oakland. $33 for 30 miles. Not much in it for the driver, if you consider all the costs, but he works in Pleasanton and lives in San Leandro. As they say, a win/win. Uber lets you set a destination for your pickup twice a day, which allows commuters to be drivers. I like this use case and hope these types of lawsuits against Uber doesn't eliminate it.
The other day I grabbed an Uber from Pleasanton to Oakland. $33 for 30 miles. Not much in it for the driver, if you consider all the costs, but he works in Pleasanton and lives in San Leandro. As they say, a win/win. Uber lets you set a destination for your pickup twice a day, which allows commuters to be drivers. I like this use case and hope these types of lawsuits against Uber doesn't eliminate it.