5 ms·
> If the drivers were employees then they could have prevented them from driving for other services. This. I feel like this doesn't come up often enough in dis
by skewart 11y ago
> If the drivers were employees then they could have prevented them from driving for other services.
This. I feel like this doesn't come up often enough in discussions about whether drivers should be considered employees or not. A lot of people seem to think that making drivers employees would be better for the drivers and have no effect on passengers. But as soon as drivers become employees it's game over for Lyft or any future competitor, and Uber's monopoly will let them push driver comp as low as possible. As long as Uber and other companies have to work to attract drivers and passengers they'll take a lower cut for themselves.
- danieltillett 11y agoIt certainly seems unusual from my perspective to create a network that others can use at no cost to compete against you. The drivers’s lawsuits could have been a great opportunity to negotiate employment contracts with excellent terms for Uber. There must be more to this than I can see, but it does look strange.
- mavhc 11y agoSurely Uber's reason to exist is to be ready to take over as soon as robocars are good enough. In a world where taxis are cheaper than owning a car, the winner is the one with the software and userbase that can organise the most journeys efficiently, offering discounts to merge rides, running buses and trains when enough people want to go from the same A to the same B
- danieltillett 11y agoThis explanation presupposes that running a ride share business is a good entry point for running a robocar business. On the face of it the requirements for running these two business appear to not have much in common.