5 ms·

I believe both Uber and Lyft avoid revealing the destination until a ride is accepted, to stop drivers from cherrypicking the most profitable rides. Therefore t

I believe both Uber and Lyft avoid revealing the destination until a ride is accepted, to stop drivers from cherrypicking the most profitable rides. Therefore there is no way to tell which of the two rides will be paying more. Uber will warn the driver if a ride is especially long and allow them to decline those, but overall the driver is kept in the dark as to which rides are more profitable. Additionally, until recently, Uber punished drivers who declined too many rides, either by deprioritizing them, or dropping them altogether.

BookmarkSaver 9y ago
Valid, but the premise still stands. The driver can sit there on both apps, and just take the first one that pops up. They aren't "working" for either company until they voluntarily choose to take a "contract" (maybe not actually a contract, almost definitely not legally a contract in some technical sense I would understand, but colloquially). I do support worker's rights heavily in most cases, I just really feel like these rideshare cases (and other similar industries, carefully curated) should be exceptional. It is hard for me to feel like the lack of structure that the driver's operate under is enough to demand full employment rights. I'm sure that somewhere in their algorithms, there is a way (or a potential way) to discriminate/penalize less active or lapsed drivers when they return to business. But that relatively minor power being said, Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement. Like, are you really an "employee" if you can, without warning or consequence, just not work for a months and then return just as suddenly? I don't know if "contractor" is the right word, maybe this should be considered something new like "micro-contractor" or something, but it operates in a way that is economically and operationally fundamentally different from traditional employers, including taxi companies.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  There's lots of room for the law to insist that they actually treat the drivers as contractors though. A lot of the controversy comes from attempts to weasel into directing them a great deal while pretending they aren't employees.
  - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
    Oh yeah. I'm not super informed about the specifics, but I have no doubt that there is some level of exploitation going on which can and should be addressed (as opposed to just sitting in a laissez-faire grey area indefinitely). It just seems like this is a case where free-market solutions really could be a powerful optimization for just about everyone involved (already the companies are struggling with drivers exploiting the system themselves). There is always regulation necessary, I just hope that this particular business remains pretty fluid compared to most industries. Part of this stems from my suspicion that the steady-state of driving services will either require a bulk of the labor to be done by people for which driving is not their primary income anyway, or there to be a very large overhead built into the prices.
- jon_richards 9y ago
  >Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement. This isn't an acceptable situation because the workers aren't employees. Uber and Lyft can offer below minimum wage to contractors who don't get their "positive profit reinforcement". The contractors will then self-enforce employee-like behaviours in order to get a better wage that still doesn't have to be above minimum wage.
  - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
    And then a large portion of drivers who only drive as a secondary or supplementary income don't drive, and there is a supply shortage, meaning prices surge.
    - jon_richards 9y ago
      Minimum wage is the acknowledgement that supply/demand is not sufficient for wage control. Your argument seems more like an argument against minimum wage in general.
      - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
        Yes, I also don't think that Uber/Lyft should necessarily be considered a means of primary employment.
        wickawic 9y ago
        You should tell that to the majoroty of (my Seattle) Lyft drivers that bought a Prius just so it could be their primary form of employment. From my personal experience it is only in the Bay Area that people use ride share as a supplemental income.
        maccard 9y ago
        Another anecdote here - spent a few weeks in North Carolina. Every Lyft driver we got while there was doing it as a supplement to their income.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
olympus 9y ago
Even if they aren't picking rides that are the most profitable, the fact that a driver can serve an Uber customer and then a Lyft customer an hour later indicates that these drivers aren't traditional employees. Now you could classify them as freelancers taking contracts at will, or you could classify them as employees working out with their manager which shifts they will work so they can get to their second job. It's just that the shifts are a few minutes long and spread out throughout the day. To most people the freelance classification probably makes more sense.
- gnopgnip 9y ago
  This distinction would not make them contractors in CA. All legal, off hours activity is protected including working for a competitor. Even if you are an Uber employee they cannot fire you for moonlighting for Lyft.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Additionally, until recently, Uber punished drivers who declined too many rides, either by deprioritizing them, or dropping them altogether. How is that an argument against drivers being contractors? My parents tried to get some contractors to work on the roof of their house. The contractors wouldn't do it. I suspect they may get deprioritized, or dropped altogether, for future roofing work.
beojan 9y ago
> I believe both Uber and Lyft avoid revealing the destination until a ride is accepted How can they possibly claim to be ride-sharing services if the driver doesn't know where they'll be going until they've accepted the ride?

BookmarkSaver 9y ago

Valid, but the premise still stands. The driver can sit there on both apps, and just take the first one that pops up. They aren't "working" for either company until they voluntarily choose to take a "contract" (maybe not actually a contract, almost definitely not legally a contract in some technical sense I would understand, but colloquially). I do support worker's rights heavily in most cases, I just really feel like these rideshare cases (and other similar industries, carefully curated) should be exceptional. It is hard for me to feel like the lack of structure that the driver's operate under is enough to demand full employment rights. I'm sure that somewhere in their algorithms, there is a way (or a potential way) to discriminate/penalize less active or lapsed drivers when they return to business. But that relatively minor power being said, Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement. Like, are you really an "employee" if you can, without warning or consequence, just not work for a months and then return just as suddenly? I don't know if "contractor" is the right word, maybe this should be considered something new like "micro-contractor" or something, but it operates in a way that is economically and operationally fundamentally different from traditional employers, including taxi companies.

maxerickson 9y ago
There's lots of room for the law to insist that they actually treat the drivers as contractors though. A lot of the controversy comes from attempts to weasel into directing them a great deal while pretending they aren't employees.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago
  Oh yeah. I'm not super informed about the specifics, but I have no doubt that there is some level of exploitation going on which can and should be addressed (as opposed to just sitting in a laissez-faire grey area indefinitely). It just seems like this is a case where free-market solutions really could be a powerful optimization for just about everyone involved (already the companies are struggling with drivers exploiting the system themselves). There is always regulation necessary, I just hope that this particular business remains pretty fluid compared to most industries. Part of this stems from my suspicion that the steady-state of driving services will either require a bulk of the labor to be done by people for which driving is not their primary income anyway, or there to be a very large overhead built into the prices.
jon_richards 9y ago
>Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement. This isn't an acceptable situation because the workers aren't employees. Uber and Lyft can offer below minimum wage to contractors who don't get their "positive profit reinforcement". The contractors will then self-enforce employee-like behaviours in order to get a better wage that still doesn't have to be above minimum wage.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago
  And then a large portion of drivers who only drive as a secondary or supplementary income don't drive, and there is a supply shortage, meaning prices surge.
  - jon_richards 9y ago
    Minimum wage is the acknowledgement that supply/demand is not sufficient for wage control. Your argument seems more like an argument against minimum wage in general.
    - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
      Yes, I also don't think that Uber/Lyft should necessarily be considered a means of primary employment.
      - wickawic 9y ago
        You should tell that to the majoroty of (my Seattle) Lyft drivers that bought a Prius just so it could be their primary form of employment. From my personal experience it is only in the Bay Area that people use ride share as a supplemental income.
        maccard 9y ago
        Another anecdote here - spent a few weeks in North Carolina. Every Lyft driver we got while there was doing it as a supplement to their income.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

olympus 9y ago

Even if they aren't picking rides that are the most profitable, the fact that a driver can serve an Uber customer and then a Lyft customer an hour later indicates that these drivers aren't traditional employees. Now you could classify them as freelancers taking contracts at will, or you could classify them as employees working out with their manager which shifts they will work so they can get to their second job. It's just that the shifts are a few minutes long and spread out throughout the day. To most people the freelance classification probably makes more sense.

gnopgnip 9y ago
This distinction would not make them contractors in CA. All legal, off hours activity is protected including working for a competitor. Even if you are an Uber employee they cannot fire you for moonlighting for Lyft.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> Additionally, until recently, Uber punished drivers who declined too many rides, either by deprioritizing them, or dropping them altogether. How is that an argument against drivers being contractors? My parents tried to get some contractors to work on the roof of their house. The contractors wouldn't do it. I suspect they may get deprioritized, or dropped altogether, for future roofing work.

beojan 9y ago

> I believe both Uber and Lyft avoid revealing the destination until a ride is accepted How can they possibly claim to be ride-sharing services if the driver doesn't know where they'll be going until they've accepted the ride?