3 ms·
>You'd have to get drivers to voluntarily give a cut of their take home to pay for insurance, the car, etc. without having a way to track what they actually mak
by intopieces 11y ago
>You'd have to get drivers to voluntarily give a cut of their take home to pay for insurance, the car, etc. without having a way to track what they actually make.
This is exactly what they do now, they just don't pay Uber, they pay those companies directly. But as a company with employees, they could negotiate a deal to get cars for cheaper, negotiate a better insurance rate, and save the driver the hassle.
But then we've come full circle, inviting regulations that drive up costs. This is an attempt to stay on the edge of that.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> inviting regulations that drive up costs. Did you mean applying labor regulations where they're supposed to be applied? Of course employing people under labor law has a cost.
- intopieces 11y agoYes, that's precisely what I mean. And that's what makes this kind of move from Lyft so interesting. They're walking a fine line. Banking on the time it takes to be regulated as runway for pivoting to automation. Google says they'll be delivering fully autonomous cars by 2020. If we give Google til 12/31/20, that's more than 5 years out. Seems like Uber/Lyft will be regulated hard before that, unless they've got something up their sleeve.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoAhh, sorry about that! I misunderstood.
- intopieces 11y agoOff topic: I'm always looking for ways to make myself better understood. I think by using the term "we", I gave the impression that I'm personally concerned about costs and that I actively support businesses skirting labor laws to save costs. Not my intention, but I can see how one could concluce that.