5 ms·

Good for them. Everyone I know loves to praise Uber and bash on taxis. while some of the criticism toward taxis is definitely founded, Uber & co. are definitely

Good for them. Everyone I know loves to praise Uber and bash on taxis. while some of the criticism toward taxis is definitely founded, Uber & co. are definitely exploiting their drivers. I really hope that they can get what they want.

kolbe 8y ago
Uber loses billions of dollars a year subsidizing drivers in the hopes that autonomous vehicles or some powerful network effect will save their business. What more do drivers want? Even if Uber gave all of their equity to their drivers, that would be a one time payment of an illiquid security worth $25,000.
- dfxm12 8y ago
  What more do drivers want? Is this a rhetorical question? The drivers' demands are clearly listed in the article: The drivers involved in the protests have four demands: 1. higher wages 2. clearer policies on wages, tips, how fares are shared and disciplinary action 3. employee benefits such as health care, disability payments and holiday pay 4. recognition and representation for drivers in Uber's management structure
  - kolbe 8y ago
    And I clearly laid out what is wrong with 1 & 3. 1. Uber loses billions a year already, and they should lose more? 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. Demands need to be structured in reality.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Maybe Uber’s business model should be structured in reality instead of basing it on large cash inflows plus underpaid workers who get no benefits?
    - duiker101 8y ago
      It's a negotiation. You want a 100k job? You say you want a rate of 150k and the company will negotiate. It would be foolish to not assume this and it would be even more foolish to assume that Uber will just spontaneously give more to the drivers instead of their executives.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        You're absolutely right! It's definitely a negotiation. It might be worth considering that an opening bid that's too high in a negotiation sometimes just convinces the counterparty to walk away. If you ask for 150k and want 100k, there's a good chance the company might just say "Sorry, we can't afford that" - and then you have nothing. Again, you're completely right. This is unquestionably a negotiation. At the same time, it would be foolish to assume that all opening bids are equally likely to be treated as reasonable.
        duiker101 8y ago
        That's where the shutdown part comes in play. Uber can't just say "I don't care" because with the more drivers taking part they are the ones to lose the most, in reputation and money.
        Kalium 8y ago
        With at most 4000 drivers spread across many cities, it sounds right now like Uber will be positioned to shrug it off entirely.
        duiker101 8y ago
        Unfortunately that is indeed very possible but unless things change at some point more people are going to join, or at least, I hope for them.
    - atonse 8y ago
      "Yeah how insane are they, to think that they should get health benefits? Must be lunatics." - Some software person that likely works in a job with great health benefits and thinks they're somehow more entitled to them.
      - wutbrodo 8y ago
        I don't know if you don't understand the point being made or you're just being intellectually dishonest, but software jobs with benefits are almost wholly not "show up when you want and work however much you want", as in the case under discussion. The claim is that requiring an entity to provide health benefits (given that we're too dysfunctional as a country to make it the govts responsibility) is justifiable when you're signing over the bulk of your time to them, in a way that perhaps isn't true when you have the relationship that Uber drivers have to Uber: working any imaginable combination and quantity of hours and doing exactly as little work as you'd like. I'm not saying I'm convinced by the argument, and I'm not saying any of the above is correct. But it is the point being made, and low-effort snarky garbage like your comment just generates more heat than light and doesn't move anyone closer to understanding the situation.
    - lm28469 8y ago
      To the people who replied: he's not wrong though. The only reason Uber still exists is because it is modern day slavery. The bet of uber was to get rid of drivers asap and get a fleet of autonomous vehicles [0], they were _way_ too optimistic, now they're just slowly dying and trying to diversify (bikes, food, &c.). You can't sell a $10 product for $7 indefinitely. Uber is the symptom of a broken system, pumping seemingly unlimited investors money based on false promises. The only winners in this game already left the boat (Kalanick for example). This type of slave like jobs were predicted in the 60s already: > If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector, swell the ranks of the army of distribution and are a eulogy to the current commodities; the additional forces which are mobilized just happen to be suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities. - Guy Debord [0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2945817/uber-will-buy-all-the-self-driving-cars-that-tesla-can-build-in-2020.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2945817/uber-will-buy-...
    - deadmetheny 8y ago
      > 1. Uber loses billions a year already, and they should lose more? It's as if they're an unsustainable business being propped up by VC money that would implode on itself in an instant if that were to go away or something. > 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. oh no the horror won't somebody think of the unicorns
      - conanbatt 7y ago
        > 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. > oh no the horror won't somebody think of the unicorns Spoken like someone unaware of how employment works for people that make less than 40k a year.
    - markovbot 8y ago
      Ubers business model is structured in mistreating their workers. Their workers are demanding better treatment. Uber has no right to continuing operating as they have been. This is not about making the math work for Uber, it's about treating humans with the slightest bit of humanity. If the math doesn't work, they shouldn't be in business.
      - buzzerbetrayed 8y ago
        This line of thinking makes no sense. If I offer you $1/day to take care of my yard then don’t take the job. That doesn’t mean I exploited you for offering. Making it cost significantly more for Uber to get drivers will just make the price of an Uber go up, the demand go down, and people losing their job as an Uber driver.
        bryanlarsen 8y ago
        If I need to feed my family and your $1/day offer is the best I get, then I'll have to take that $1/day offer. So yes, it's exploitative. My refusal of your $1/day offer may also disqualify me from welfare or other benefits. So just by making the offer you may put somebody into a lose-lose situation.
    - atonse 8y ago
      I very well understand the point. But it takes a certain level of willful ignorance on the part of the parent post to somehow think that it's crazy for one class of people to want health insurance because it somehow hurts another class of people (business owners). Because they didn't say "uber drivers that work 8 hours a month?" they said "Uber drivers". I agree with you that the only pragmatic solution is to follow the rest of the industrialized world and move to a single payer system, then we just stop having this debate and even talking about who is more deserving of worry-free healthcare. (Not talking about you, just the parent post).
  - imgabe 8y ago
    >1. higher wages Wasn't the entire point of Uber that they provided dynamic pricing based on the availability of drivers? If the wages are low, it's because there is an oversupply of drivers and a low demand for rides. Your option as a driver is to go do something else and drive at a time when the wages offered are more to your liking.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      If you're a rideshare driver, regulations are headed to employee classification instead of contractor status due to how much control Uber has over the transaction and the work conditions (you don't get to set the price, the when, the where, or the how). If you're an employee, minimum wage requirements (and other benefits) kick in. If making minimum wage as a driver breaks Uber's model at ride prices without subsidies, the business is unsustainable (which should be no surprise to anyone; I don't think there has ever been any evidence Uber could or would be profitable). The whole "you're an independent contractor, don't work for poverty wages if you don't want to, it's a choice" argument is almost out of runway thankfully.
      - jquery 8y ago
        With Uber you most definitely do set the when, where, and some of the “how” (which car do you use?). You also choose the price at which you are willing to drive. That said, employee classification at this point would probably help Uber over its competitors, because it could start setting hours for its drivers to make demand and prices more predictable. Regulatory capture benefits large companies over small ones. Uber has the operations team to make employee classification work at scale. At the edges of employee classification Uber could offer options to drivers such as a “bid” function if they wanted, with the primary result being increased friction (but perhaps increased happiness) for drivers.
        bobthepanda 8y ago
        IIRC aren’t there specific requirements on what make and models are acceptable for Ubers? It’s basically just a more expensive dress code.
- duiker101 8y ago
  You are right, silly drivers, they should obviously give up some of their income to help Uber.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    What did Uber drivers "give up"? They want more, and they want more from a company that already gives them far more money than the company makes. They've "never given" up anything.
    - duiker101 8y ago
      That comment was sarcasm highlighting how your previous comment is putting the well being of the company above the well being of the drivers.
      - kolbe 8y ago
        The company loses billions of dollars a year paying drivers more than the drivers make for the company. What about this is putting the company ahead of the drivers? If we were talking about a company like Google or Facebook that makes insane amounts of money, then I'd understand your argument. But Uber is already just a driver subsidy machine. Describe in any reasonable fashion, how Uber would come up with even $5b more a year to pay for healthcare of 4 million people. Do it with concrete steps, and not just appeals to emotion or jokes. [response to @duiker101] That's the response you came up with when you finally had to say something real? I will gladly accept the brigade of downvotes from you and the rest of the cargo cult labor organizers who express zero interest in real dialogue.
        duiker101 8y ago
        Honestly, that's not even a problem that concerns drivers. If Uber can't make money without exploiting drivers then it's not not a good company and it should not survive.
        pjc50 8y ago
        Raise prices? You know, like every other business that has to charge more than its cost of production in order to have positive margins?
- danepowell 8y ago
  Giving the parent the benefit of the doubt, I interpreted "what more do drivers want" as "what more can drivers expect to get", which I think is a reasonable question for what seems to be an as-yet unsustainable company. I don't think it necessarily implies a lack of sympathy for drivers, which I assume is the reason for the downvotes.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    Yeah. I take it as a given that they want to be billionaire emperors, but that is not very relevant. If people are interpreting "want" outside of the realms of what is possible for them to get, then they aren't on the same page with me about what that word means in this context. But I'm not getting downvoted because of semantics. There's a very vocal socialist/labor movement contingent on HN that flocks to discussions like this.
buzzerbetrayed 8y ago
I know I’ll probably take heat for this, but I really don’t understand this idea of Uber “exploiting” drivers. Being an Uber driver isn’t like other jobs where you have set hours to work, bad working conditions, manipulative managers, etc... No one is keeping you from getting another job and doing Uber on weekends, or doing Uber never. I can’t think of another job where you are more free to do what you want and make your situation better. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but I know many people disagree. What exactly is Uber doing to exploit drivers?
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  The entire thing is basically taking advantage of less financially literate people; after taking into account taxes and faster depreciation, you’re really not making much money. Of course, the latter takes a while to be visible since most people don’t really look at the value of their car on a day to day basis, and the former is only apparent when tax day comes around.
- beart 8y ago
  I don't know much about Uber in particular, but in general, I don't think you should claim a company is not exploiting employees based on the assumption that those employees don't have to work there. If Uber puts a taxi company out of business, those employees might be forced to work for Uber under worse conditions, for example. The worse off your situation is, the more difficult it is to do something about it. I'm reminded of this story https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-driver-taxi-uber.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-driver-ta...
- netsharc 8y ago
  I'll preface this with: In my understanding... Basically, Uber and other "gig economy jobs" can only exist because of the shit economic conditions of the last however many years. They are even worse than McJobs because you're not even employed. Terrible regulations and corporate lobbying has meant wages have been terrible for a lot of decades, and people need 2, 3 jobs to survive. And in this environment Uber has arrived, with a "It's better than nothing" job (although their ads promise a lot more than that, obviously). But the business environment is the environment. After writing the above paragraph, I realized it seems like the problem is that Uber promised their drivers good money, but the reality is much different, the money is not enough to make a living, which is probably why their drivers are pissed off and feel exploited. (If Job A (Uber) promised you say $1000/week and job B promises you $800/week, you'd take job A. But if it turns out job A only earns you $600 plus excuses, you'd be pissed off because you would've been better off taking job B in the first place). And add to that the psychological tricks: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/uber-drivers-psychological-tricks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/ub...

kolbe 8y ago

Uber loses billions of dollars a year subsidizing drivers in the hopes that autonomous vehicles or some powerful network effect will save their business. What more do drivers want? Even if Uber gave all of their equity to their drivers, that would be a one time payment of an illiquid security worth $25,000.

dfxm12 8y ago
What more do drivers want? Is this a rhetorical question? The drivers' demands are clearly listed in the article: The drivers involved in the protests have four demands: 1. higher wages 2. clearer policies on wages, tips, how fares are shared and disciplinary action 3. employee benefits such as health care, disability payments and holiday pay 4. recognition and representation for drivers in Uber's management structure
- kolbe 8y ago
  And I clearly laid out what is wrong with 1 & 3. 1. Uber loses billions a year already, and they should lose more? 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. Demands need to be structured in reality.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Maybe Uber’s business model should be structured in reality instead of basing it on large cash inflows plus underpaid workers who get no benefits?
  - duiker101 8y ago
    It's a negotiation. You want a 100k job? You say you want a rate of 150k and the company will negotiate. It would be foolish to not assume this and it would be even more foolish to assume that Uber will just spontaneously give more to the drivers instead of their executives.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're absolutely right! It's definitely a negotiation. It might be worth considering that an opening bid that's too high in a negotiation sometimes just convinces the counterparty to walk away. If you ask for 150k and want 100k, there's a good chance the company might just say "Sorry, we can't afford that" - and then you have nothing. Again, you're completely right. This is unquestionably a negotiation. At the same time, it would be foolish to assume that all opening bids are equally likely to be treated as reasonable.
      - duiker101 8y ago
        That's where the shutdown part comes in play. Uber can't just say "I don't care" because with the more drivers taking part they are the ones to lose the most, in reputation and money.
        Kalium 8y ago
        With at most 4000 drivers spread across many cities, it sounds right now like Uber will be positioned to shrug it off entirely.
        duiker101 8y ago
        Unfortunately that is indeed very possible but unless things change at some point more people are going to join, or at least, I hope for them.
  - atonse 8y ago
    "Yeah how insane are they, to think that they should get health benefits? Must be lunatics." - Some software person that likely works in a job with great health benefits and thinks they're somehow more entitled to them.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      I don't know if you don't understand the point being made or you're just being intellectually dishonest, but software jobs with benefits are almost wholly not "show up when you want and work however much you want", as in the case under discussion. The claim is that requiring an entity to provide health benefits (given that we're too dysfunctional as a country to make it the govts responsibility) is justifiable when you're signing over the bulk of your time to them, in a way that perhaps isn't true when you have the relationship that Uber drivers have to Uber: working any imaginable combination and quantity of hours and doing exactly as little work as you'd like. I'm not saying I'm convinced by the argument, and I'm not saying any of the above is correct. But it is the point being made, and low-effort snarky garbage like your comment just generates more heat than light and doesn't move anyone closer to understanding the situation.
  - lm28469 8y ago
    To the people who replied: he's not wrong though. The only reason Uber still exists is because it is modern day slavery. The bet of uber was to get rid of drivers asap and get a fleet of autonomous vehicles [0], they were _way_ too optimistic, now they're just slowly dying and trying to diversify (bikes, food, &c.). You can't sell a $10 product for $7 indefinitely. Uber is the symptom of a broken system, pumping seemingly unlimited investors money based on false promises. The only winners in this game already left the boat (Kalanick for example). This type of slave like jobs were predicted in the 60s already: > If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector, swell the ranks of the army of distribution and are a eulogy to the current commodities; the additional forces which are mobilized just happen to be suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities. - Guy Debord [0] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2945817/uber-will-buy-all-the-self-driving-cars-that-tesla-can-build-in-2020.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2945817/uber-will-buy-...
  - deadmetheny 8y ago
    > 1. Uber loses billions a year already, and they should lose more? It's as if they're an unsustainable business being propped up by VC money that would implode on itself in an instant if that were to go away or something. > 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. oh no the horror won't somebody think of the unicorns
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      > 3. Health care? You kidding me? That's $300+ a month in the US, which would be a $15 billion/year expense for Uber. > oh no the horror won't somebody think of the unicorns Spoken like someone unaware of how employment works for people that make less than 40k a year.
  - markovbot 8y ago
    Ubers business model is structured in mistreating their workers. Their workers are demanding better treatment. Uber has no right to continuing operating as they have been. This is not about making the math work for Uber, it's about treating humans with the slightest bit of humanity. If the math doesn't work, they shouldn't be in business.
    - buzzerbetrayed 8y ago
      This line of thinking makes no sense. If I offer you $1/day to take care of my yard then don’t take the job. That doesn’t mean I exploited you for offering. Making it cost significantly more for Uber to get drivers will just make the price of an Uber go up, the demand go down, and people losing their job as an Uber driver.
      - bryanlarsen 8y ago
        If I need to feed my family and your $1/day offer is the best I get, then I'll have to take that $1/day offer. So yes, it's exploitative. My refusal of your $1/day offer may also disqualify me from welfare or other benefits. So just by making the offer you may put somebody into a lose-lose situation.
  - atonse 8y ago
    I very well understand the point. But it takes a certain level of willful ignorance on the part of the parent post to somehow think that it's crazy for one class of people to want health insurance because it somehow hurts another class of people (business owners). Because they didn't say "uber drivers that work 8 hours a month?" they said "Uber drivers". I agree with you that the only pragmatic solution is to follow the rest of the industrialized world and move to a single payer system, then we just stop having this debate and even talking about who is more deserving of worry-free healthcare. (Not talking about you, just the parent post).
- imgabe 8y ago
  >1. higher wages Wasn't the entire point of Uber that they provided dynamic pricing based on the availability of drivers? If the wages are low, it's because there is an oversupply of drivers and a low demand for rides. Your option as a driver is to go do something else and drive at a time when the wages offered are more to your liking.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    If you're a rideshare driver, regulations are headed to employee classification instead of contractor status due to how much control Uber has over the transaction and the work conditions (you don't get to set the price, the when, the where, or the how). If you're an employee, minimum wage requirements (and other benefits) kick in. If making minimum wage as a driver breaks Uber's model at ride prices without subsidies, the business is unsustainable (which should be no surprise to anyone; I don't think there has ever been any evidence Uber could or would be profitable). The whole "you're an independent contractor, don't work for poverty wages if you don't want to, it's a choice" argument is almost out of runway thankfully.
    - jquery 8y ago
      With Uber you most definitely do set the when, where, and some of the “how” (which car do you use?). You also choose the price at which you are willing to drive. That said, employee classification at this point would probably help Uber over its competitors, because it could start setting hours for its drivers to make demand and prices more predictable. Regulatory capture benefits large companies over small ones. Uber has the operations team to make employee classification work at scale. At the edges of employee classification Uber could offer options to drivers such as a “bid” function if they wanted, with the primary result being increased friction (but perhaps increased happiness) for drivers.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        IIRC aren’t there specific requirements on what make and models are acceptable for Ubers? It’s basically just a more expensive dress code.
duiker101 8y ago
You are right, silly drivers, they should obviously give up some of their income to help Uber.
- kolbe 8y ago
  What did Uber drivers "give up"? They want more, and they want more from a company that already gives them far more money than the company makes. They've "never given" up anything.
  - duiker101 8y ago
    That comment was sarcasm highlighting how your previous comment is putting the well being of the company above the well being of the drivers.
    - kolbe 8y ago
      The company loses billions of dollars a year paying drivers more than the drivers make for the company. What about this is putting the company ahead of the drivers? If we were talking about a company like Google or Facebook that makes insane amounts of money, then I'd understand your argument. But Uber is already just a driver subsidy machine. Describe in any reasonable fashion, how Uber would come up with even $5b more a year to pay for healthcare of 4 million people. Do it with concrete steps, and not just appeals to emotion or jokes. [response to @duiker101] That's the response you came up with when you finally had to say something real? I will gladly accept the brigade of downvotes from you and the rest of the cargo cult labor organizers who express zero interest in real dialogue.
      - duiker101 8y ago
        Honestly, that's not even a problem that concerns drivers. If Uber can't make money without exploiting drivers then it's not not a good company and it should not survive.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Raise prices? You know, like every other business that has to charge more than its cost of production in order to have positive margins?
danepowell 8y ago
Giving the parent the benefit of the doubt, I interpreted "what more do drivers want" as "what more can drivers expect to get", which I think is a reasonable question for what seems to be an as-yet unsustainable company. I don't think it necessarily implies a lack of sympathy for drivers, which I assume is the reason for the downvotes.
- kolbe 8y ago
  Yeah. I take it as a given that they want to be billionaire emperors, but that is not very relevant. If people are interpreting "want" outside of the realms of what is possible for them to get, then they aren't on the same page with me about what that word means in this context. But I'm not getting downvoted because of semantics. There's a very vocal socialist/labor movement contingent on HN that flocks to discussions like this.

buzzerbetrayed 8y ago

I know I’ll probably take heat for this, but I really don’t understand this idea of Uber “exploiting” drivers. Being an Uber driver isn’t like other jobs where you have set hours to work, bad working conditions, manipulative managers, etc... No one is keeping you from getting another job and doing Uber on weekends, or doing Uber never. I can’t think of another job where you are more free to do what you want and make your situation better. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but I know many people disagree. What exactly is Uber doing to exploit drivers?

bobthepanda 8y ago
The entire thing is basically taking advantage of less financially literate people; after taking into account taxes and faster depreciation, you’re really not making much money. Of course, the latter takes a while to be visible since most people don’t really look at the value of their car on a day to day basis, and the former is only apparent when tax day comes around.
beart 8y ago
I don't know much about Uber in particular, but in general, I don't think you should claim a company is not exploiting employees based on the assumption that those employees don't have to work there. If Uber puts a taxi company out of business, those employees might be forced to work for Uber under worse conditions, for example. The worse off your situation is, the more difficult it is to do something about it. I'm reminded of this story https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-driver-taxi-uber.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-driver-ta...
netsharc 8y ago
I'll preface this with: In my understanding... Basically, Uber and other "gig economy jobs" can only exist because of the shit economic conditions of the last however many years. They are even worse than McJobs because you're not even employed. Terrible regulations and corporate lobbying has meant wages have been terrible for a lot of decades, and people need 2, 3 jobs to survive. And in this environment Uber has arrived, with a "It's better than nothing" job (although their ads promise a lot more than that, obviously). But the business environment is the environment. After writing the above paragraph, I realized it seems like the problem is that Uber promised their drivers good money, but the reality is much different, the money is not enough to make a living, which is probably why their drivers are pissed off and feel exploited. (If Job A (Uber) promised you say $1000/week and job B promises you $800/week, you'd take job A. But if it turns out job A only earns you $600 plus excuses, you'd be pissed off because you would've been better off taking job B in the first place). And add to that the psychological tricks: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/uber-drivers-psychological-tricks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/ub...