3 ms·

On the contrary, there is no exploitation. A driver for uber (or dasher for doordash, or whatever) is legally completely allowed to create their own app to take

On the contrary, there is no exploitation. A driver for uber (or dasher for doordash, or whatever) is legally completely allowed to create their own app to take their own orders. This is because they are independent contractors -- businesses, from a legal perspective, doing business with other businesses. As such, neither uber nor doordash nor anyone else can prevent its ICs from joining other networks (hence why many drive for lyft and uber). It would be exploitation if these individuals were employees, which is what California has recently forced in that state. This state-mandated exploitation is immoral and unjust, because it precludes workers from doing things like this. In California, now exploited employees would first have to quit their gig job in order to join a new app that benefits them. This creates an artificial moat around starting a new app because often times these individuals would not have enough capital to be able to finance even short periods of unemployment and migration to a new platform. That is really sad.

nacho2sweet 7y ago
It was cool when Uber financed all those bad car leases (because they had a certain level of new car) and made a bunch drivers indentured servants. Making them drive more and more while they cut the driver pay rate.
tomtheelder 7y ago
There is extreme exploitation, due to independent contractors not being afforded almost any worker protections. Each gig employer has no incentive, legal or otherwise, to provide for their workers. In their efforts to minimize labor costs they can employ tactics like reducing wages below minimum wage, offering no benefits, discriminating at will, and of course offering less work than could possibly sustain an employee. This last one is made particularly easy because of the ability of ICs to work for many operators: the employers know their workers will just pick up extra work on another platform, often with a cruel total of worked hours for minimal pay. In California, these workers will now receive some of the protections offered to others. That is not a perfect situation or anything, but the current state of ICs in the gig economy is _abominable_. They will be free to seek new employment without quitting much like any other worker. Yes they wont be able to work oppressive hours for multiple employers, none of whom are providing for them. That is not a bad thing. The gig economy is an unmitigated disaster. I'm not sure CA's solution is perfect, but it's a _big_ improvement.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Oh, you mean the protection of being forced to work for a failing employer. Yes, so much protection /s
doctorpangloss 7y ago
> an artificial moat around starting a new app In the real world we actually inhabit, where Uber and Lyft have lost money every quarter, I'm not sure "state-mandated exploitation" is the "moat."
- tathougies 7y ago
  This further demonstrates the need for a cooperative non-profit marketing agency made up of several independent small taxi-cab/logistics companies as members. It is clearly an unprofitable field but the individual merchants benefit quite a bit it would seem. Nevertheless, uber's unprofitability actually makes california's actions even more reprehensible, because not only are the drivers no longer allowed to work on their own app, but they are also forced to work, in the meantime, for a company that's losing money and likely to face bankruptcy. In other words, they're being exploited for temporary gain by the state of California, who likely just wants to get their hands on payroll tax.
WalterBright 7y ago
There's also nothing stopping an Uber driver from doing a side deal with regular customers, where they phone the driver directly when they need a pickup, and they'll keep all the fare. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens a lot.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Yes, I've done that before several times. If I'm asking the guy to drop me off for something and I know I need a ride later, I will ask for them to name a price and pick me up, and I'll pay in cash or via venmo or whatever. They love it because they keep more of the money, and I love it because they treat you even better.

nacho2sweet 7y ago

It was cool when Uber financed all those bad car leases (because they had a certain level of new car) and made a bunch drivers indentured servants. Making them drive more and more while they cut the driver pay rate.

tomtheelder 7y ago

There is extreme exploitation, due to independent contractors not being afforded almost any worker protections. Each gig employer has no incentive, legal or otherwise, to provide for their workers. In their efforts to minimize labor costs they can employ tactics like reducing wages below minimum wage, offering no benefits, discriminating at will, and of course offering less work than could possibly sustain an employee. This last one is made particularly easy because of the ability of ICs to work for many operators: the employers know their workers will just pick up extra work on another platform, often with a cruel total of worked hours for minimal pay. In California, these workers will now receive some of the protections offered to others. That is not a perfect situation or anything, but the current state of ICs in the gig economy is _abominable_. They will be free to seek new employment without quitting much like any other worker. Yes they wont be able to work oppressive hours for multiple employers, none of whom are providing for them. That is not a bad thing. The gig economy is an unmitigated disaster. I'm not sure CA's solution is perfect, but it's a _big_ improvement.

tathougies 7y ago
Oh, you mean the protection of being forced to work for a failing employer. Yes, so much protection /s

doctorpangloss 7y ago

> an artificial moat around starting a new app In the real world we actually inhabit, where Uber and Lyft have lost money every quarter, I'm not sure "state-mandated exploitation" is the "moat."

tathougies 7y ago
This further demonstrates the need for a cooperative non-profit marketing agency made up of several independent small taxi-cab/logistics companies as members. It is clearly an unprofitable field but the individual merchants benefit quite a bit it would seem. Nevertheless, uber's unprofitability actually makes california's actions even more reprehensible, because not only are the drivers no longer allowed to work on their own app, but they are also forced to work, in the meantime, for a company that's losing money and likely to face bankruptcy. In other words, they're being exploited for temporary gain by the state of California, who likely just wants to get their hands on payroll tax.

WalterBright 7y ago

There's also nothing stopping an Uber driver from doing a side deal with regular customers, where they phone the driver directly when they need a pickup, and they'll keep all the fare. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens a lot.

tathougies 7y ago
Yes, I've done that before several times. If I'm asking the guy to drop me off for something and I know I need a ride later, I will ask for them to name a price and pick me up, and I'll pay in cash or via venmo or whatever. They love it because they keep more of the money, and I love it because they treat you even better.