4 ms·
>An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers
by will_brown 8y ago
>An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices.
It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws.
In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately.
In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers.
Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police.
One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
- scarface74 8y agoThe other side is not innocent either. It’s called “regulatory capture”. The entrenched interests - the taxi companies - have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
- will_brown 8y agoThe taxi companies were operating under a certain regulatory framework...it’s easy to “disrupt” the industry is you break the law while others are complying with the regulatory frame work. Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law. You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
- scarface74 8y agoA regulatory framework that they lobbied to keep so they could provide inferior service and keep their investments in medallions high. Those laws only served taxi companies.
- neuralRiot 8y agoBoth sides have their share of guilt, taxi licenses cost over 1M in some jurisdictions as the previous post said it's easy to "disrupt" a market when you have $0 cost to start. If i started selling liquor in my garage i'm sure i could do it at a much lower price than the local bar all while earning more money, I don't it will last too long however.
- scarface74 8y agoThe alcohol distribution racket also suffers from regulatory capture.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_distribution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis...
- will_brown 8y agoIt does...but it’s doesnt justify a “tech start up” being able to raise billions because they found a market in illegally manufacturing and selling alcohol. You are basically justifying someone like al Capone who found a huge market for alcohol distribution during prohibition. The law may have been wrong, but you don’t celebrate the criminal, criminal activity and bodies left in the wake.
- will_brown 8y agoNo it doesn’t only serve them...it also serves consumers and the general public. Licenses, safety standards of vehicles, insurance, rules and regulations of the road. Yes, these things do make the barrier to entry more difficult, but they also serve the public good. Any time you see a car just stopped in the middle of the road with it’s hazards on odds are it’s a Uber driver. I can’t tell you how often I encounter dangerously hazardous Uber pick ups and drop offs that violate the law, because these drivers have no training. And just as quickly as Uber was happy to violate and break laws to gain their market share and become the industry incumbent, they too are now spending millions on lobbying efforts to reinstate all the same regulatory frameworks (licenses, insurance, vehicle standards) to close the door behind them.