Heard it all before
December 31, 2015 6:58 AM Subscribe
Liss-Riordan is tired of hearing that labor laws should adapt to accommodate upstart tech companies, not the other way around: "Why should we tear apart laws that have been put in place over decades to help a $50 billion company like Uber at the expense of workers who are trying to pay their rent and feed their families?" -- Meet "Sledgehammer Shannon," the labor rights lawyer who took on Starbucks and FedEx, and now, Uber, in defense of their workers.
Or, you know, a functional welfare state...?
posted by Octaviuz at 7:05 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Octaviuz at 7:05 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
At what point is a functional welfare state just another subsidy to exploitative cheapskate businessmen? It's important, but it's only a small part of the equation.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:08 AM on December 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:08 AM on December 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
I love this woman SO MUCH. First time I heard her name was in 2012, when she took down a local chain that was doing the shittiest of shitty things to their workers. Very happy to hear that she's now got her sights set on this sharing-economy bullshit. (Her taking the bar exam in California to spite a defendant in one of her suits is the best thing I've read all week)
posted by Mayor West at 7:16 AM on December 31, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 7:16 AM on December 31, 2015 [31 favorites]
I also loved that she took the bar in CA. Trying to get her off the case by arguing she's not eligible to practice in the state is really the kind of approach her opponents must take, because the law is clearly not on their side. It's encouraging to see the corporate law firms can't dissemble or otherwise get around her arguments.
posted by callistus at 7:25 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by callistus at 7:25 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pope Guilty, I would say a welfare state payed for by an (actually, minus capital gains exemptions, etc.) progressive tax code is not a sop to cheapskate businessmen.
posted by Hactar at 7:39 AM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Hactar at 7:39 AM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I was really resistant to Uber for a while, because I'd heard not-so-great things about how they were structured and how they operate. On the other hand, taxis just straight up suck in Boston.
It's not the little guy versus the Uber technocrats. It's the old taxi medallion holding fat-cats versus the Uber technocrats, and the little guys are getting fucked like usual, regardless of their bosses.
I'm all for regulation. I REALLY like regulation. I hate when people use regulation to defend their business and prevent competition, rather than to defend the public and the customers. I'd like to see a "sledgehammer" taken not only to Uber, but ALSO to the existing taxi establishments, because holy crap, they suck.
Right now, I try to use public transportation as much as possible because it's cheaper and responsible, but when I need someone to drive me, I use Uber. It's the more convenient of two evils.
posted by explosion at 7:40 AM on December 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's not the little guy versus the Uber technocrats. It's the old taxi medallion holding fat-cats versus the Uber technocrats, and the little guys are getting fucked like usual, regardless of their bosses.
I'm all for regulation. I REALLY like regulation. I hate when people use regulation to defend their business and prevent competition, rather than to defend the public and the customers. I'd like to see a "sledgehammer" taken not only to Uber, but ALSO to the existing taxi establishments, because holy crap, they suck.
Right now, I try to use public transportation as much as possible because it's cheaper and responsible, but when I need someone to drive me, I use Uber. It's the more convenient of two evils.
posted by explosion at 7:40 AM on December 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's about time we hammer the "not employees, contractors" dodge into the ground so hard that companies finally get the sense to accept from the get go that they are abusiness, not a clever rentier dodge.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [33 favorites]
Here's how I see it:
1. Provide an excellent service. Make decent profits for capital interests.
2. Provide an excellent service. Push labor further into the ground, make grandiose profits for capital interests.
#1 is an option, you know. It just requires less straight-up labor-fucking greed.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:51 AM on December 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
1. Provide an excellent service. Make decent profits for capital interests.
2. Provide an excellent service. Push labor further into the ground, make grandiose profits for capital interests.
#1 is an option, you know. It just requires less straight-up labor-fucking greed.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:51 AM on December 31, 2015 [28 favorites]
She's a hero. I hope her new year is both prosperous and happy.
posted by Beholder at 7:51 AM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Beholder at 7:51 AM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Everyone I talk to about this is like "but (insert your favorite sharing economy service here) is a good service, it should be left alone" and I'm thinking "Okay, but it's still fucking over labor in the long run for ZERO added benefit to how you experience the service".
People can't be arsed to care for each other it seems.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
People can't be arsed to care for each other it seems.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [18 favorites]
when I need someone to drive me, I use Uber. It's the more convenient of two evils.
I hate and despise Uber with every fibre of my being, because it sidesteps all labour laws, all employment protections, and more importantly, the safety of passengers w/r/t assault or accident.
Using Uber is supporting the erosion of labour rights, period.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [39 favorites]
I hate and despise Uber with every fibre of my being, because it sidesteps all labour laws, all employment protections, and more importantly, the safety of passengers w/r/t assault or accident.
Using Uber is supporting the erosion of labour rights, period.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [39 favorites]
It's not the little guy versus the Uber technocrats.
In Liss-Riordan's case it is. Uber can follow the law and meet responsibilities to employees vital to its business, it's just trying not to.
posted by callistus at 7:55 AM on December 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
In Liss-Riordan's case it is. Uber can follow the law and meet responsibilities to employees vital to its business, it's just trying not to.
posted by callistus at 7:55 AM on December 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
Uber could have been a software company that marketed to taxi companies. Instead they opted to cheat as a taxi company. Flaunting the laws everyone else has to follow and the media fawned over it.
I hope she gets the Uber employees the pay and benefits they are owed.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:30 AM on December 31, 2015 [15 favorites]
I hope she gets the Uber employees the pay and benefits they are owed.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:30 AM on December 31, 2015 [15 favorites]
It's about time we hammer the "not employees, contractors" dodge into the ground so hard that companies finally get the sense to accept from the get go that they are abusiness, not a clever rentier dodge.
One of the worst responses that we're now seeing to that dodge getting called out is "well, we need a middle road for these companies between employee and contractor."
No.
We need to stop pretending that the rules magically change when you get a computer involved. Oddly enough, the tech community cheered when the courts stated that about patents, but when you logically extend the principle, they get a bit bent out of shape.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [34 favorites]
One of the worst responses that we're now seeing to that dodge getting called out is "well, we need a middle road for these companies between employee and contractor."
No.
We need to stop pretending that the rules magically change when you get a computer involved. Oddly enough, the tech community cheered when the courts stated that about patents, but when you logically extend the principle, they get a bit bent out of shape.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [34 favorites]
....these so-called micro-entrepreneurs
Ugh, this can't be a term actually in use, can it?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:13 AM on December 31, 2015
Ugh, this can't be a term actually in use, can it?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:13 AM on December 31, 2015
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I was really resistant to Uber for a while, because I'd heard not-so-great things about how they were structured and how they operate. On the other hand, taxis just straight up suck in Boston.
I don't take taxis, like, a lot, but I have taken them in the past when the T is more screwed than usual and the weather doesn't allow me to ride my bike. Plus a few emergency occasions where I needed to take a pet to the vet ER and my partner's car wasn't available for whatever reason.
I don't get this complaint. At all. The taxis always show up in a reasonable amount of time (when I'm not hailing one from a stand) and take me where I want to go. They're expensive, sure, but not because the drivers are screwing me or anything.
The only real issue I have with the taxi system vs. Uber is the way that cab companies are tied to specific bits of turf. If I need a cab, I'll need to call a different company if I'm in Longwood than I would in Cambridge. And, yeah, that sucks, but there's got to be a solution to that problem other than "blow it all up and fuck over the drivers".
posted by tobascodagama at 9:18 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't take taxis, like, a lot, but I have taken them in the past when the T is more screwed than usual and the weather doesn't allow me to ride my bike. Plus a few emergency occasions where I needed to take a pet to the vet ER and my partner's car wasn't available for whatever reason.
I don't get this complaint. At all. The taxis always show up in a reasonable amount of time (when I'm not hailing one from a stand) and take me where I want to go. They're expensive, sure, but not because the drivers are screwing me or anything.
The only real issue I have with the taxi system vs. Uber is the way that cab companies are tied to specific bits of turf. If I need a cab, I'll need to call a different company if I'm in Longwood than I would in Cambridge. And, yeah, that sucks, but there's got to be a solution to that problem other than "blow it all up and fuck over the drivers".
posted by tobascodagama at 9:18 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also, kudos to this woman for fixing the Upper Crust situation.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:19 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:19 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
An interesting question on the independent contractor vs. employee question is whether these 'independent contractors' can drive for both services. I don't want to sign up for an Uber account so I'm not sure if I can view their driver policies, but it looks like you can drive for multiple services provided you don't have the wrong brand in the window at the time of the ride. However, there are some reports disputing this point.
It would seem like a slam dunk that if Uber forbids you from also working with Lyft, that you would then be Uber exclusive and an employee, not a contractor.
It further seems that if Uber sets ride prices, then they are no longer a lead-generating service for contractors but an actual car service, with drivers as employees. Were they to allow their "contractors" to set their own prices, it might be a little more ambiguous.
And speaking of further ways to rip these ride-share drivers off: Rent a car to drive for uber/lyft.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:33 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
It would seem like a slam dunk that if Uber forbids you from also working with Lyft, that you would then be Uber exclusive and an employee, not a contractor.
It further seems that if Uber sets ride prices, then they are no longer a lead-generating service for contractors but an actual car service, with drivers as employees. Were they to allow their "contractors" to set their own prices, it might be a little more ambiguous.
And speaking of further ways to rip these ride-share drivers off: Rent a car to drive for uber/lyft.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:33 AM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't get this complaint. At all. The taxis always show up in a reasonable amount of time (when I'm not hailing one from a stand) and take me where I want to go. They're expensive, sure, but not because the drivers are screwing me or anything.
A large part of the issue, I think, is the attitude that the service economy should be solely oriented around the consumer. Making considerations for the workers and businesses that may negatively impact the end user are strictly verboten.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:35 AM on December 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
A large part of the issue, I think, is the attitude that the service economy should be solely oriented around the consumer. Making considerations for the workers and businesses that may negatively impact the end user are strictly verboten.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:35 AM on December 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
And speaking of further ways to rip these ride-share drivers off: Rent a car to drive for uber/lyft.
Uber: We're Totally Not A Livery Service, Even Though We Act Like One.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:38 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Uber: We're Totally Not A Livery Service, Even Though We Act Like One.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:38 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oddly enough, the tech community cheered when the courts stated that about patents
What specifically are you referring to here? What the "tech community" thinks about patents depends a lot on who you're asking, and I'm honestly not completely sure what angle you're coming from.
posted by atoxyl at 9:43 AM on December 31, 2015
What specifically are you referring to here? What the "tech community" thinks about patents depends a lot on who you're asking, and I'm honestly not completely sure what angle you're coming from.
posted by atoxyl at 9:43 AM on December 31, 2015
Existential Dread: Very simply, under IRS rules, companies cannot control their independent contractors' ability to contract with other companies, because that is an employer-like thing to do. So, since Uber values their model (and they should; it's worth a lot of money in taxes they'd otherwise have to pay), they have to put up with their drivers working for other services. They have to be very careful not to show even the slightest appearance of controlling that ability to contract freely.
posted by Atrahasis at 9:46 AM on December 31, 2015
posted by Atrahasis at 9:46 AM on December 31, 2015
Anyway I'm very very much on team "your benefits should come from the state and if that can be made convenient (not necessarily cheap) for employers all the better." But in the meantime they need to come from somebody .
posted by atoxyl at 9:46 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 9:46 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oddly enough, the tech community cheered when the courts stated that about patents
What specifically are you referring to here?
There was a court ruling that basically said that adding "but with a computer" to an existing business process was not a valid way to create a business process patent.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
What specifically are you referring to here?
There was a court ruling that basically said that adding "but with a computer" to an existing business process was not a valid way to create a business process patent.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:54 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
There was a court ruling that basically said that adding "but with a computer" to an existing business process was not a valid way to create a business process patent.
Yep, Alice v. CLS Bank. Business methods get a hard no on patentability; case law is still being established as to how it affects software patents and medical diagnostics. The Alice decision is a bit of a double-edged sword, and overall it remains to be seen how the impacts play out.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:59 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yep, Alice v. CLS Bank. Business methods get a hard no on patentability; case law is still being established as to how it affects software patents and medical diagnostics. The Alice decision is a bit of a double-edged sword, and overall it remains to be seen how the impacts play out.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:59 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh okay yeah I was thinking something different and anyway I didn't know about that decision. Interesting.
posted by atoxyl at 10:04 AM on December 31, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 10:04 AM on December 31, 2015
Every time I look at the thread title I get Black Flag stuck in my head
posted by Existential Dread at 11:10 AM on December 31, 2015
posted by Existential Dread at 11:10 AM on December 31, 2015
Trying to get her off the case by arguing she's not eligible to practice in the state is really the kind of approach her opponents must take, because the law is clearly not on their side.
Well, it's a thing they must do because she is actually not a California lawyer. She's abusing the pro hac vice thing. That's unrelated to the merits of the case. I'm pretty sure washio didn't just think she'd go away, but you have to get all your issues out there or you waive them. With money on the line, you don't waive stuff. She didn't take the exam to spite them, she took it because the court had a point and she wanted to be able to operate in California without hiring puppet California attorneys.
It's not the little guy versus the Uber technocrats. It's the old taxi medallion holding fat-cats versus the Uber technocrats, and the little guys are getting fucked like usual, regardless of their bosses.
I think she gets that. I like that she's also sued taxi companies. She's not anti-Uber, she's anti Labor-fuckers-over.
posted by ctmf at 11:38 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, it's a thing they must do because she is actually not a California lawyer. She's abusing the pro hac vice thing. That's unrelated to the merits of the case. I'm pretty sure washio didn't just think she'd go away, but you have to get all your issues out there or you waive them. With money on the line, you don't waive stuff. She didn't take the exam to spite them, she took it because the court had a point and she wanted to be able to operate in California without hiring puppet California attorneys.
It's not the little guy versus the Uber technocrats. It's the old taxi medallion holding fat-cats versus the Uber technocrats, and the little guys are getting fucked like usual, regardless of their bosses.
I think she gets that. I like that she's also sued taxi companies. She's not anti-Uber, she's anti Labor-fuckers-over.
posted by ctmf at 11:38 AM on December 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
The court's order denying summary judgment is actually pretty devastatingly hostile to Uber. Clearly, if the judge had to decide on the merits right now, Uber would not be the winner.
posted by ctmf at 11:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 11:41 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
She didn't take the exam to spite them, she took it because the court had a point and she wanted to be able to operate in California without hiring puppet California attorneys.
On the other hand, if she were operating on the Uber model, she would just say screw the California regulations, she is free to do her lawyering anywhere she wants because lawyer medallions are anti-competitive and the courts would let her because libertarian creative disruption or whatever.
posted by JackFlash at 11:48 AM on December 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
On the other hand, if she were operating on the Uber model, she would just say screw the California regulations, she is free to do her lawyering anywhere she wants because lawyer medallions are anti-competitive and the courts would let her because libertarian creative disruption or whatever.
posted by JackFlash at 11:48 AM on December 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
Were they to allow their "contractors" to set their own prices, it might be a little more ambiguous.
I bet you that one thing would tip every one of these lawsuits in Uber's favor. If the drivers got to set their own price-per-mile, and then the uber app showed the prospective rider a number of wait times and prices and let them choose. Uber would then be facilitating driver competition among themselves. Which sounds like it would be even more horrible for the drivers, yay.
posted by ctmf at 12:13 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I bet you that one thing would tip every one of these lawsuits in Uber's favor. If the drivers got to set their own price-per-mile, and then the uber app showed the prospective rider a number of wait times and prices and let them choose. Uber would then be facilitating driver competition among themselves. Which sounds like it would be even more horrible for the drivers, yay.
posted by ctmf at 12:13 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hate the taxi protectionism with white-hot fury but there's not any real question in my mind that Uber is wrong on this. When we hired a part-time nanny we had to confront the IRS rules about contractor versus employee and there the guidance was "do you substantially guide the worker's activities." I felt like you could make the case that someone can do one on one childcare without necessarily being employee-level managed, but the caselaw didn't agree with me one iota.
So if someone cannot be tasked with doing standard child-rearing tasks that are guided by biology and basic cleanliness, how could someone possibly uphold the not-trivial guidance Uber exerts on drivers as less restrictive? You might lean on the own-car thing, as compared to in someone's house, but again the level of control they exerted on the drivers of the black cars isn't exactly trivial in appearance.
I'm more on the side that a lot of this safety net stuff really belongs decoupled from employment, but from a consistency standard about the way things are now this should be a slam dunk.
posted by phearlez at 12:35 PM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
So if someone cannot be tasked with doing standard child-rearing tasks that are guided by biology and basic cleanliness, how could someone possibly uphold the not-trivial guidance Uber exerts on drivers as less restrictive? You might lean on the own-car thing, as compared to in someone's house, but again the level of control they exerted on the drivers of the black cars isn't exactly trivial in appearance.
I'm more on the side that a lot of this safety net stuff really belongs decoupled from employment, but from a consistency standard about the way things are now this should be a slam dunk.
posted by phearlez at 12:35 PM on December 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
This post is going to help make a happy New Year's Eve for me. I live in a town with reliable, affordable taxi service that hasn't yet been fucked by the Uber red tide. I hope it stays tha way.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 1:05 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Sheydem-tants at 1:05 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's possible for companies to treat employees adequately and decently, Except. Publicly held companies are required to maximize shareholder value, period. They will be, and are sued if they don't pursue profit above all else. Would they behave better if they could? Maybe, probably mostly not. But the pursuit of profit over all else is making this country so money-grubbing and nasty and hurting workers.
Vote, organize. It matters.
posted by theora55 at 1:27 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Vote, organize. It matters.
posted by theora55 at 1:27 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Publicly held companies are required to maximize shareholder value, period.
Nnnnnyeah, but I don't think it works like that. If the CEO thought treating workers well was what was going to maximize shareholder value long term, all things considered, they would not be bound to ignore that for a little cash now.
Of course, they'd have to defend that to the board or be replaced. But it's not like it's a law that thou shalt always grab the money now.
posted by ctmf at 2:21 PM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Nnnnnyeah, but I don't think it works like that. If the CEO thought treating workers well was what was going to maximize shareholder value long term, all things considered, they would not be bound to ignore that for a little cash now.
Of course, they'd have to defend that to the board or be replaced. But it's not like it's a law that thou shalt always grab the money now.
posted by ctmf at 2:21 PM on December 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
atoxyl: "Anyway I'm very very much on team "your benefits should come from the state and if that can be made convenient (not necessarily cheap) for employers all the better." But in the meantime they need to come from somebody ."
If I was God-Emperor it would work the same way my union handles benefits:
You could also step the benefits so those people who only want to work 20 or 30 hours a week could receive a percentage.
People could buy credits at the same rate as businesses allowing say artists or sales people with variable income streams from sales to buy credits as their income warranted.
Also: mandated vacation pay as a percentage of wages.
posted by Mitheral at 3:22 PM on December 31, 2015
If I was God-Emperor it would work the same way my union handles benefits:
- For every hour I work the company I am working for makes a contribution to the union's benefit plan on my behalf of one hour credit.
- Every month I need to "buy" my benefits. This costs me 120 hour credits.
- Credits never expire. Work more than 40 hours a week consistently and you rapidly accumulate credits to tide you over during periods of unemployment or vacation.
You could also step the benefits so those people who only want to work 20 or 30 hours a week could receive a percentage.
People could buy credits at the same rate as businesses allowing say artists or sales people with variable income streams from sales to buy credits as their income warranted.
Also: mandated vacation pay as a percentage of wages.
posted by Mitheral at 3:22 PM on December 31, 2015
I took Uber from the airport hotel to downtown San Francisco ("when in Rome", and all) and it was $40 cheaper each way than what a real taxi would have been. I can easily see how Uber is a necessity for a lot of people if their cutting corners makes it that much cheaper in such an insanely expensive city. This delightful collapsing economy and society pits everyone at the bottom against each other.
posted by 3urypteris at 4:07 PM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by 3urypteris at 4:07 PM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
What current labor protections are afforded to cab drivers in your local market? Are these protections greater than those offered by Uber? The answer may suprise you. In many places can drivers work as independent contractors renting the cab and medalian. Uber can't obliterate labor protections that never existed in the first place.
posted by humanfont at 5:34 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 5:34 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I view this fight sort of like funding the mujahideen to fight the evil Russians, back when we considered the Russians the bad guys. Yeah, maybe throwing money and anti-aircraft missiles at Islamic radicals is a bit wacky, but those Commies need to get kicked out of Afghanistan, right?
(Where the entrenched taxi cartels are the Russians, and Uber is the mujahideen who turned into the Taliban government.)
It's not like either one is a "kinder, gentler" alternative, but I need to get home and I'm sure as heck not driving after six whiskeys.
posted by theorique at 5:43 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Where the entrenched taxi cartels are the Russians, and Uber is the mujahideen who turned into the Taliban government.)
It's not like either one is a "kinder, gentler" alternative, but I need to get home and I'm sure as heck not driving after six whiskeys.
posted by theorique at 5:43 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
the uber app showed the prospective rider a number of wait times and prices and let them choose. Uber would then be facilitating driver competition among themselves
That's a future service. In addition to UberBLACK, UberTAXI, UberX and UberPOOL, there will be UberTHUNDERDOME.
DRIVERS COMPETE FOR YOUR BUSINESS ... TO THE DEATH
posted by theorique at 5:46 PM on December 31, 2015
That's a future service. In addition to UberBLACK, UberTAXI, UberX and UberPOOL, there will be UberTHUNDERDOME.
DRIVERS COMPETE FOR YOUR BUSINESS ... TO THE DEATH
posted by theorique at 5:46 PM on December 31, 2015
DRIVERS COMPETE FOR YOUR BUSINESS ... TO THE DEATH
So, like Dubai taxis in the 90s.
posted by ctmf at 9:43 PM on December 31, 2015
So, like Dubai taxis in the 90s.
posted by ctmf at 9:43 PM on December 31, 2015
> And speaking of further ways to rip these ride-share drivers off: Rent a car to drive for uber/lyft.
Uber apparently is getting into the predatory auto loan business too. Although that article is from 2014; I don't know what's happened more recently with that.
posted by aka burlap at 10:59 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uber apparently is getting into the predatory auto loan business too. Although that article is from 2014; I don't know what's happened more recently with that.
posted by aka burlap at 10:59 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hell, Uber is trying to replace public transit in Toronto. Their press release claimed the multi-person-pickup service is for areas underserved by public transit. Lies. All of them are served, and it's just such a coincidence that Uber is scheduling the routes into the financial district. They're setting up a parallel service for the relatively wealthy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:36 AM on January 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:36 AM on January 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Uber: On the Road to Nowhere
Toward the end of his remarks, Gobena, a member of the App-Based Drivers Association, said, “I know Uber will probably deactivate me tomorrow, but I’m ready because this is worth fighting for.”posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:28 AM on January 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It didn’t take that long. At 6:50 that evening, a few hours after several websites posted stories about the news conference, Uber emailed Gobena to notify him that he had been deactivated as a driver. The reason Uber gave: His auto insurance had expired.
Gobena rushed to inform the news media and Councilman O’Brien about his being deactivated (Uber-ese for dismissed). Not only that, Gobena sent them iPhone photos of his insurance certificate, which wasn’t to expire until December. Several reporters contacted Uber to ask about the sudden deactivation, and as if by magic, Uber re-activated Gobena around 9 p.m. (Uber denied deactivating him, even though news websites later posted a screenshot of Uber’s deactivation message on Gobena’s phone.)
Yeah, that caught my eye as well. It's like they couldn't help themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:08 AM on January 5, 2016
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:08 AM on January 5, 2016
I think this is an important point as well:
FOR INDER PARMAR, an UberX driver for nearly three years in New York City, the job has grown worse as Uber has pushed to expand.
“If Uber brings in 1,000 more drivers this week, they will tell everyone to welcome them, but the business is being depleted,” Parmar says. “There’s one pie. Last year, the pie was shared by 20,000 Uber drivers. Now it’s being shared by almost 30,000. I am making less money. I don’t know about other drivers, but I don’t see how they can say they’re making more money.”
Parmar is upset that Uber is continuing to charge ahead in its effort to add more drivers in New York—part of its global strategy to increase market share and revenues. In late November, Uber ran advertisements on New York City buses, saying anyone who signed up to drive would earn a minimum of $7,000 in December.
While there are massive problems with the medallion system, the problem with arguing that it is solely a rentseeking affair ignores that it does serve legitimate concerns in controlling the active pool of operating livery, allowing the drivers to not wind up cannibalizing each other to the point that they are no longer able to make ends meet. And this is a large part of the problem with the attack on regulation that Uber pushes - they use unpopular and controversial regulations to spearhead attacks on legitimate regulations that would constrict their revenue, like regulations intended to spread airport runs (which are some of the most valuable) across the livery population as a whole.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:38 AM on January 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
FOR INDER PARMAR, an UberX driver for nearly three years in New York City, the job has grown worse as Uber has pushed to expand.
“If Uber brings in 1,000 more drivers this week, they will tell everyone to welcome them, but the business is being depleted,” Parmar says. “There’s one pie. Last year, the pie was shared by 20,000 Uber drivers. Now it’s being shared by almost 30,000. I am making less money. I don’t know about other drivers, but I don’t see how they can say they’re making more money.”
Parmar is upset that Uber is continuing to charge ahead in its effort to add more drivers in New York—part of its global strategy to increase market share and revenues. In late November, Uber ran advertisements on New York City buses, saying anyone who signed up to drive would earn a minimum of $7,000 in December.
While there are massive problems with the medallion system, the problem with arguing that it is solely a rentseeking affair ignores that it does serve legitimate concerns in controlling the active pool of operating livery, allowing the drivers to not wind up cannibalizing each other to the point that they are no longer able to make ends meet. And this is a large part of the problem with the attack on regulation that Uber pushes - they use unpopular and controversial regulations to spearhead attacks on legitimate regulations that would constrict their revenue, like regulations intended to spread airport runs (which are some of the most valuable) across the livery population as a whole.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:38 AM on January 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And this is a large part of the problem with the attack on regulation that Uber pushes - they use unpopular and controversial regulations to spearhead attacks on legitimate regulations that would constrict their revenue, like regulations intended to spread airport runs (which are some of the most valuable) across the livery population as a whole.
There is a definite moral hazard at play here: something bad for drivers (individually or collectively) is not necessarily bad for Uber as a company. So there's an incentive for the company to push initiatives that penalize drivers to benefit the company.
You could take it to its logical limit with a thought experiment - if Uber unveiled a "perfect AI" driverless car that no other company could touch, do you think they would continue their contracts with "driver-partners"? Unlikely - the human drivers would be 'deactivated' (interesting language there) in favor of automation.
posted by theorique at 9:53 AM on January 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is a definite moral hazard at play here: something bad for drivers (individually or collectively) is not necessarily bad for Uber as a company. So there's an incentive for the company to push initiatives that penalize drivers to benefit the company.
You could take it to its logical limit with a thought experiment - if Uber unveiled a "perfect AI" driverless car that no other company could touch, do you think they would continue their contracts with "driver-partners"? Unlikely - the human drivers would be 'deactivated' (interesting language there) in favor of automation.
posted by theorique at 9:53 AM on January 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Salon has an interesting piece on Uber's failure in Europe. The point was that European countries, placing a greater value on the social contract, took a dim view of Uber's initial attempts to bust existing regulations, which in turn soured people on the business as a whole.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:25 PM on January 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:25 PM on January 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Vurig Nieuw Jaar! | "Come on, let's go get some coffee." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:03 AM on December 31, 2015 [7 favorites]