33 ms·

CEO of Uber: Gig Workers Deserve Better

335 points by mitchbob 6y ago

Nursie 6y ago
"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" Riiiiight.
- kmorgh 6y ago
  As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that. I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - PedroBatista 6y ago
    How about quitting? Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Quitting would be an act of protest in argument for a better alternative. Such as a government-mandated requirement.
    - kmorgh 6y ago
      You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations. But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber. In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
      - PedroBatista 6y ago
        I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything. These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen. I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    Depends on the board, and depends on the circumstance. If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more. Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
    - kmorgh 6y ago
      I agree, the question is unfortunately in many of these cases. Will the lawsuits actually cost us billions, or will we get a slap on the wrist and actually be better off in the end if we take that hit. Because we can grow faster now. See Google or Microsoft anti-trust.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dikei 6y ago
  I think he also meant that Uber could not compete, if it does this alone without its competitors doing the same.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    This is a bit rich from a company that has undercut many markets by classifying its workers as independent contractors. "I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"
    - vmception 6y ago
      This is a bit rich when you think about who else would be an authoritative source to talk about these problems and draw a blank. Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective. And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated. There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do. I think talking about the challenges have merit.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  > "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear. We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for. > We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to. I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit. The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified. What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.
- naveen99 6y ago
  That’s standard tax minimizing behavior from right to left.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  My take from the article is thay if Uber were to currently offer its "driver-partners" benefits like health insurance, they would legally be considered employees, which neither party wants.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Why don't Uber's 'employees who we don't call employees' not want their health insurance to be paid?
    - jpgvm 6y ago
      Some (not all) may not wish to be classified as employees for various reasons would be my guess. Health insurance is a separate concern and should probably be handled by the state rather than by random corporations anyway like every other 1st world country.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        >various reasons // But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?
        jpgvm 6y ago
        If you are an independent contractor you are protected under a different set of rights vs an employee. The main right people are interested in when pursuing independent contracting is ability to set their own hours, both in amount and distribution. There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
close04 6y ago
A CEO coming out and saying "we should do better" is simply an admission that they didn't and still don't. I see it as a personal failure of the CEO, an institutional failure of the company, and an attempt to give it a positive "moral" spin in the media. This isn't about what Uber can or should do, it's what everyone else should do so Uber can be in a better light without actually changing anything.
weebwoobfly 6y ago
Now that we’ve grown to dominate the space by fragrantly ignoring and intentionally breaking laws, we support creating new laws that will prevent others who lack our scale and resources from entering our monopoly.
- sushshshsh 6y ago
  "Government, I beseech thee, make my industry more complex and regulated than even telecom!"
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  I think you meant “flagrantly” but in the case of Uber “fragrantly” fits quite well too.
- phyzome 6y ago
  But definitely don't make us owe back pay!
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Of course. This is gate-keeping with a sprinkle of regulatory capture. My favorite quote: >Many of our critics, ..., believe that Uber and our gig economy peers have failed drivers by treating them as contractors, and that we will do anything to avoid the cost of employee benefits like health insurance. Given our company’s history, I can understand why they think that. Pray tell, what is this company history you're talking about? Come on, be specific. And did those policies get you the market-share you have now?
cseleborg 6y ago
This is rather cynical, isn't it? Mr. Khosrowshahi is suggesting that rather than finding ways of making employment more flexible, let's remain in the gig economy and re-invent benefits, conveniently forgetting how long it took to get to the benefits of employment in the first place. The calculation is ridiculous. According to his example, if someone had been working almost full time for a year, they would have accumulated enough funds for a whopping 2 weeks of paid leave OR medical insurance -- but not both! And they couldn't have done it any other way because they wouldn't be so big otherwise. Further, his central argument revolves around the fact that since Uber recruited drivers as gig workers promising them flexibility, their survey shows, unsurprisingly, that their drivers want... flexibility. Proof that nobody needs benefits, for sure. Mr. Khosrowshahi isn't even trying to sound convincing.
- Nursie 6y ago
  Yes it is somewhat cynical, particularly that bit you call out, effectively saying that if Uber had to do things properly it wouldn't be so big, people would have to pay more etc etc. This is what a lot of folks had been saying from the start was a huge negative - you're using a get-out of employment rights to undercut other companies! I'm sure there must be a way to have both employment rights and flexibility over hours worked. That has to have been done before.
  - close04 6y ago
    > we support laws that could make that possible > But America needs to change He's not here to make a case for what Uber should do to make it better. He's asking for America to change the frame of reference so they can look better without actually changing a thing. > you're using a get-out of employment rights to undercut other companies! Uber and the media branded this as "disruption". Uber played by their own rules to get big. With that goal achieved and with no more need to keep running afoul, they're asking for their rules to become the official standard.
- rvense 6y ago
  He is trying to make it sound like they are trying to do better. Note the layers there. It's tactics. Doing nothing while sounding like you're trying to do something will maybe be a little more sustainable for Uber than doing nothing while putting on a pair a of sunglasses and yelling "This is capitalism, baby!" with a big grin, which would be my summary of the previous tactic. The end goal remains to do nothing, of course, but maybe they've accepted that they need to send more people to more meetings with the Government and pay for a ghost-written whiny NYT opinion piece once in a while.
PedroBatista 6y ago
That's an entertaining soundbite when your business is based on literally extract value from those poor peasants you say deserve better.
- aminozuur 6y ago
  And doctors extract value from sick people. Nonetheless, a doctor might have good reasons to state that his patients deserver better. Assuming malice is not an effective counter-argument.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    Bad comparison. A doctor does not make people sick (or if they do, they're criminally liable). Uber intentionally designed the contracts of those gig workers.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      And Uber doesn't make people need transportation services, or make people need to earn a living by providing transportation services. It's crazy how entitled Americans have become over the past few decades that helping somebody find driving work now counts as "exploitation".
      - majewsky 6y ago
        I'm not American.
        logicchains 6y ago
        I wasn't referring to you in particular sorry, just the general tone in this thread. The worst part is people are happy to make assumptions without actually even asking Uber drivers what they want.
  - tingol 6y ago
    Wow, that analogy is so far off it's insane. You equate extracting value by underpaying employees to doctors curing sick people. Please man, get a grip.
xiphias2 6y ago
It's not Ubers fault that the central banks lowered interest rates to so low levels that assets are a huge ponzi sceme, and people who don't own those assets have to compete for the crappiest jobs to survive. I have met Uber drivers in Brazil that told me that their job got easier and their pay higher since they started working for Uber. And the CEO is wright that I would prefer renting a car when travelling if Uber would get more expensive.
- d0100 6y ago
  Yep the Uber reality in Brazil is too different from the US. Working as an Uber in Brazil nets you more than what's available for even those that have degrees. Also, cheap drives has made it so even poor people take an Uber, whereas taxis are only for the rich. Uber prices go up, poor people stop using Uber. I'll stop using Uber.
  - kopos 6y ago
    Is this without any incentives from Uber? From what I’ve seen in India, the drivers have to work really hard and do 50-69 hour days to get a decent living. With Uber taking a 30% cut, and the driver themselves having to cough up the repairs, etc - it does not amount to a huge jump in income.
    - tathougies 6y ago
      > 50-69 hour days to get a decent living. Wow you've seen a lot to see a 50 hour day.
      - kopos 6y ago
        week
    - d0100 6y ago
      I'm not sure about incentives from Uber, but the few drivers I talked to report at least twice the minimum wage, doing normal total hour amounts (more during the weekend, at night, etc). It also covers any benefits from minimum wage I prefer advocating for Uber getting less % than forcing Uber to hire everyone and destroying cheap and convenient transportation Cut Uber profits but don't force outdated labor rules on something that relies on cheapness to thrive Driving for Uber isn't a career and shouldn't be legislated as one
tareqak 6y ago
The people Dara Khosrowshahi refers to as gig workers that also reside in California should be called, treated as, and receive the full benefits of employees [0]. Uber is fighting this law, and him continuing to call them gig workers only benefits Uber and other companies pretending to be a marketplace between workers and and customers. [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates-sue-california-over-ab5-gig-worker-law/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates-sue-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(20...
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  "Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits." Times have changed. People don't want stable jobs anymore. That's why the industries where workers have a modicum of power (law, medicine, finance, tech) are dominated by "flexible" work schedules.
  - thorin 6y ago
    If you offer people stable work, with good pay and benefits, pension, healthcare (in the US), you won't have a shortage of applicants believe me. This myth being spread that people want flexible work is perpetuated by the people who benefit.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      Sorry that my sarcasm wasn't clear. The idea that people enjoy being marginally attached "gig workers" is absurd. Talk to an Uber driver. If they aren't scared that you are a spy from corporate, they will tell you what they really think.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      I want flexible work... The ability to earn some money with zero notice is awesome. The minute you start requiring contracts and working hours, and qualifications, and exclusivity, it has suddenly made life dull. Suddenly you're a drone wearing a suit working 9-5 for 50 years then retiring when you're too old to fulfil your dreams. No thanks!
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I have to say I appreciate the honesty in the title, although I'm surprised that he was willing to admit it.
- nix23 6y ago
  Tactics, it's like saying i'am the CEO of McDonald and being vegan, but i understand every meat lover out there, now both sides love you :-)
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I was reading it more like "I am the CEO of McDonalds. Workers at McDonalds deserve (a) better (CEO than I am)"
    - nix23 6y ago
      True, in that case, BUT he says they are Gig-Workers and not Workers at Uber.
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        The beauty of English is that it is flexible enough to mean that gig workers deserve better in general OR gig workers deserve a better CEO than him, given how the title is structured.
nix23 6y ago
I Am the CEO of Nike, child workers deserve better, it's the Government's fault.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Despite your sarcasm, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution), and it is the government's job to ensure that the factories are safe. It is also the government's responsibility, not Nike's, to provide education to children and the conditions to pursue it instead of working.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution) So Nike is the next best to child prostitution, i get it :) But you are right, the next big question is, should a company have the right to do stuff like that. Witch would be illegal in the country where they have the HQ. Switzerland has a really interesting discussion about that ATM: https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/k... EDIT: Sorry no English version available to translate use: https://www.deepl.com/en/translator https://www.deepl.com/en/translator
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      It certainly is an interesting question. From what I gathered, the initiative calls for companies to companies to respect internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards. I don't think this means that the supply chain must comply with swiss standards an regulations. For example, paying swiss minimum wage in Vietnam would be crazy. I think there is a big disconnect when people judge the working conditions in other countries by local expectations.
      - nix23 6y ago
        No it's really about "internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards" witch should be the standard anyway, with that law you can make those corporations responsible for the shit they do in other country's. ATM that other country have to do it by themselves, an example is Kongo, but they don't do anything for obvious reasons.
undecisive 6y ago
Most people are looking at this cynically, and I agree that it's a stall for time, he's trying to justify paying people the minimum because otherwise all the other greedy pigs would undercut him, etc etc. However, my cynicism goes a level deeper. It is in Uber's best interests for laws to change and make the scene more complicated, so that all operators in this space - including Uber - have to pay more to their workers and have more encumbrances. Why? Well, Uber is an established operator. They have made their bucketloads of money off the back of underpaying their workers, got themselves out of startup status in a way that - if they play their cards right - no other gig operator will be able to replicate. Less competition, less disruption. I think there is an argument that says that "gig economy" should be enveloped in laws that protect the gig worker rights and ensure fair pay and a safety net, without introducing laws that enforce restrictions on the workers. Governments should work to simplify the burdens on individuals, without creating new loopholes for the wealthy. "It's hard" is a valid statement, but not a reason to reject the concept. But I would continue to be fully cynical of any solution that has the top gig economy CEO's seal of approval.
- starfallg 6y ago
  That's the problem with 'disruption' as the MO for tech startups - they end up creating new business models that may not be any more efficient or better overall for society, and escapes scrutiny during the time that society adjusts. By the time everybody catches on, the damage is done. We need a better way to internalise social and environmental costs. Just because human society has been able to adapt to past technological and social upheavals is not an indication that it will be able to continue to do so.
  - treis 6y ago
    Taxi companies have always been crap places to work. The job is (relatively) dangerous, pay is bad, flexibility is bad, and probably no benefits. Didn't help that most cities had a medallion system that enabled a group of rent seekers. And outside of NYC, Chicago, and maybe a couple other cities taxis sucked. I think Uber is much more efficient and better overall for society than what it is replacing. Not a great job by any means, but far better than a taxi company. And when I look back 10 years ago Uber/Lyft are probably top 3 things that have made the world better. It opened up an enormous amount of flexibility when going out at night and eliminated concerns around drunk driving.
marenkay 6y ago
Step 1: sabotage any worker rights established by pushing workers into freelance/self-employed work. Step 2: keep the money for labour costs in your pocket and become a unicorn because people with cash want to bet on the removal of worker rights. Step 3: profit Step 4: do some lame PR, still keep the cash. Change nothing. Because others have to do that. Just not you. All you needed was the money. Companies following that model should not have a high valuation because they exist on borrowed time. Extorting money from a system does not make your business profitable at all, it just prolongs death. Also... is it just me or does Uber seem highly ineffective in operations considering the amount of engineers needed for running the business?
- coldcode 6y ago
  Uber is not a successful for-profit business in the long run as they make no profits; given free money to be able to subsidize what costs there are (and operating on the backs of people who make little themselves) can exist for a long time before failing. In the meantime richly paid executives and well paid employees can milk it for a long time.
  - mnky9800n 6y ago
    And it's not like they become poor or suffer any real consequences when their company fails after never having produced profit ever.
    - papito 6y ago
      Capitalism without risk is da shizzle, yo.
  - marenkay 6y ago
    Exactly what I was referring to. The whole business is broken, it is merely a bet on removing worker rights in the long run and that is what it is valued for.
- papito 6y ago
  I think the idea is to dominate the market and become the primary player, if not the player, in the driverless economy. The problem is, many players are angling for this - Google, Apple, Amazon, Tesla. If you are not efficient and frugal enough, you won't even make it. Also, those other companies have actual viable sources of income, while Uber is at the mercy of VCs.
aminozuur 6y ago
Looking at the comments, Uber is still hated despite the leadership change. Some people hear "Uber" and immediately assume and project the worst. I think the article was well written. And I wonder what the comments would look like if this article was by the CEO of Lyft.
- majewsky 6y ago
  There's no difference. If it were the CEO of Lyft, I'd suspect that he advocates for it to price Uber out of the market and avoid new competitors. Same as Uber, just with the name tags flipped around.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
Exploit exploit exploit, when the wind turns, use your market position you have gainend and become Paulus.
fastball 6y ago
Does anyone else think its silly that a "PSA"-type op-ed thing is behind a paywall?
rbg246 6y ago
This is fear of being regulated, I think the gig economy is low hanging fruit to regulate and tear apart to pretend they (whoever is in charge) are changing society, he is trying to frame Uber as part of the 'solution' rather than the problem.
- frockington1 6y ago
  He probably wants regulation. Once you're the dominant player, have Congress build you a moat. It worked great for financial and health industries
  - rbg246 6y ago
    True but not too much, he is trying to control the narrative on regulation
walrus01 6y ago
I want to know how many billable hours from how many public relations professionals, image consultants and Uber's own marketing department went into the draft of this before the final copy was published.
nottorp 6y ago
Isn't much of the 'gig economy' trouble because the US has no single payer health insurance?
- e12e 6y ago
  It doesn't help - but it's not all. There's been some struggle in Norway too regarding foodora food delivery, partly around compensation for riders using their own bikes: https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for-foodora-strikers-collective-agreement-in-place https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for-foodora-...
tomcat27 6y ago
Would Uber be willing to pay a premium initial deposit to the collective fund on the name of all their gig workers they had since the beginning. That would assuage people skeptical about marketplace dynamics for new startups.
adamsvystun 6y ago
If you are able to factor out all the despise you have for Uber, I think the article has a lot of good points. There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor. There is a trade-off for both employers and employees in both agreements. Different people want different degree of benefits. It seems to me that everybody would win if there was more flexibility here, and this is what the article seem to be suggesting. Seems reasonable.
- pixelrevision 6y ago
  It’s reasonable, just hard to take seriously coming from a company that skirts around laws and regulation as a business model.
- thrav 6y ago
  It is very reasonable, even if it does benefit Uber. He should really be going the step further and saying, “Health Care shouldn’t even be tied to employment in a developed nation,” but that would be too political. The fact that we have millions who just lost health care during a time when they need it most should be the nail in the coffin of our current system. It’s been hugely flawed for years, and now it’s just a joke. Some problems have very simple, but very big and different from American status quo solutions. People who love markets would still be able to pay a premium for what they want, just like they do now with all the care providers who have totally bailed on taking even the best insurance.
- NelsonMinar 6y ago
  Why would anyone try to forget all the reasons we have to despise Uber? The company is corrupt to its founding core.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  "There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor." This begs the question of why there should be an option between those two things. I'm not sure why there should be, except that employers don't like supporting employees and aren't allowed to treat contractors the same way.
throwaway122378 6y ago
Really CEO of UBER? Then pay them more than the 30% you give them
Upvoter33 6y ago
A lot of issues would be solved with a basic social contract to all citizens: healthcare plus a small living stipend. Do that and people can Gig away. Too much is hard to change when healthcare is so attached to full-time/regular employment, and when it is hard to move between jobs/etc. for fear of loss of income.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  Most Uber drivers with families qualify for Medi-Cal. Doesn’t it piss you off that the California taxpayer is basically subsidizing a giant corporation and convenient transport for idiots drinking on weekends?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    The alternative framing is that uber is basically subsidizing the state by paying a wage to people who would otherwise be unemployed and require more taxpayer money.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    With government healthcare, everyone is on Medi-Cal. Then no one needs to be pissed off. Like sure, it would be nice if Uber gave their drivers enough money/benefits for them to not need government benefits. But then they'd have fewer drivers available and be a very different business. And those drivers would be at the mercy of Uber for their healthcare. That's not a good situation for either party.
- sunsetMurk 6y ago
  Do you have any links to articles/discussions about this proposed direction? I'm pretty sure I agree... and would like to further develop my opinion about ~this stuff. It's so dumb for an individual to go bankrupt from a random health issue and/or pay a ton of money each month for "insurance" that is basically useless; and also dumb for an employer to be responsible or in control of anything having to do with an individual's health care decisions.
whack 6y ago
It seems odd that our public discourse has settled on the following set themes: - Every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits - The person's employer is tasked with the above responsibility - If a corporation pays their workers less than the above baseline, they are bad. We should shame them, and pass laws to ensure that they pay their workers better - If a corporation decides not to hire someone at all, and operates with a smaller workforce by tweaking their business model, that is perfectly acceptable and even laudable Combine all of the above, and you end up with a world where corporations go above-and-beyond to reduce their headcount, and entrepreneurs specifically avoid labor-intensive business models. Firms like DE Shaw are publicly lauded for making lots of money with a tiny elite workforce, while spinoffs like Amazon are publicly shamed for actually employing hundreds of thousands of middle class workers. All this only worsens the situation for those in the lower-middle-class in the long-term, because now they have fewer work opportunities, and less demand for their labor. Clearly every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits. But instead of heaping this responsibility on the subset of corporations that hire low-skill workers, this responsibility really should lie with everyone. Tax billionaires, tax the upper-middle-class, tax profitable corporations, and use the money to strengthen the social safety net for low-skill workers. That would eliminate this entire mess.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  I don’t want to subsidize Walmart with my taxes. That’s exactly what you’re proposing, and in fact what happens. Companies underpay their workers, who end up needing government assistance. In the end my taxes go to supporting a company that I would never shop at.
  - cltby 6y ago
    You’re not subsidizing Walmart. You’ve decided that workers should enjoy some standard of living but are unwilling to shoulder the costs of providing it (e.g. through taxes). Instead, you’ve kicked those costs to Walmart. Walmart is subsidizing you.
    - stetrain 6y ago
lsiebert 6y ago
The idea that employees can't have flexibility is BS though.
ilaksh 6y ago
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg. Its not just about Uber. Its not just about the gig economy in general. Its about the entire economy. There are multiple forces at work. One aspect is the actual long-term debt cycle which people don't realize puts pressure on everything. The other thing is the effective de-regulation and loosening of employee protections. Another part is tech monopolization. We actually need an entirely new high tech global economic paradigm. We need to re-invent money and government with advanced distributed protocols. That will allow us to holistically and locally track and regulate resources with a universal basic income (or hopefully even a bit more than basic) while we scale-up deployment of automation.
Ericson2314 6y ago
I and friends have long been saying the gig companies should self-interestedly push for a better universal safety net, so gig works get benefits but the bill is amortized. This is just the....dumb version of that same argument. But maybe this is intentional, because arguing for yet another insurance pool is "non partisan", while arguing for universal heal care will make it harder to lobby both parties.
afrojack123 6y ago
What is the administration cost difference between an employee and contractor? Also, what causes the difference?
Pr0ducer 6y ago
I am the CEO of Uber, and I can gas-light you from the opinion section of the New York Times, because money talks. No other person is better positioned to do something about the plight of gig workers more than me, but I'm going to tell you a story about how we could all fix this together to distract you from reality. I'll throw in some blame to build up a strawman we can all tear down together, while gig workers still get the shaft and I still get my fat payday.
- asdff 6y ago
  Not a great year from the opinion section of the NYT. Between this and Tom Cotton, I'm convinced the editorial board just looks at the pile of money and the potential virality of these posts, rather than the words written on the page.
- threepio 6y ago
  Yes! Even his opening premise is flagrantly false: the problem is not that Uber has "failed drivers by treating them as contractors". The problem is that Uber has arrogated to itself all the benefits of an employee-style relationship without incurring any of the burdens. They can't have it both ways. But their business depends on it. Switching to food delivery does not give them a way out of the pain machine. Which is why they have to spend so much money working the refs.
- dmamills 6y ago
  Exactly, this is essentially 'thoughts and prayers' said euphemistically. Luckily we have the average hacker news commenter to come in and fill us in on why billionaires aren't actually so bad after all. I just don't know what I'd do without this website sometimes!
stetrain 6y ago
There are two points I think that need to be raised here: 1) GDP-Per-Capita has grown steadily and is at an all-time high https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location... 2) Real wages per capita have stagnated since the 70s https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... So in general, productivity per worker has increased. Amazon can move more products direct to your home with fewer people than was possible in 1970. Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these increasing efficiencies. Yet the suggestion that businesses should pay their workers who enable this value proportionately gets responses that we will be squashing economic potential, dragging these enterprises down, etc. Instead Walmart, Amazon, etc. use these great efficiencies of scale to compete on lower prices. Which totally does have economic benefits, but it also pushes out competition. Local stores can't compete with an international megacorp's productivity leverage, so we end up with a Walmart in every town and Amazon boxes on our doorstep. Is that truly an economic plus? It sure is nice in some ways, but are all those warehouse workers Amazon employs really new jobs? Or are they replacing a similar or greater number of jobs that were previously providing those same goods and services in a decentralized manor?
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  > Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these increasing efficiencies. This is very unclear and it depends on what measurements you look at. Lots of economists claim we've had historically low productivity growth in the last two decades - eg Total-Factor Productivity growth has been very low (~0.5%/year) every year since ~2005.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The little device in everyone’s pocket can do is much that required other people’s time and labor. Purchasing travel, researching real estate markets, checking into a hotel, comparing prices, obtaining product information and reviews, etc. If I need to find something at Home Depot or Target or Lowes, I don’t need a person to help me anymore. I go to their website and it tells me exactly where the item is. All of these little efficiencies add up to me needing fewer other people to help me.
stevehawk 6y ago
Is there any reason to believe the CEO really believes this or is this just the next step in their business model: start raising the barriers to entry by making it more expensive for the competition?
sfard 6y ago
I worked for Dara before. Believe it or not, he is a sincere and honest person. Yes, he cares about the bottom line (as any CEO would) but he believes what he's saying here.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  Well, I guess Hitler also believed what he was saying.
bogomipz 6y ago
>"It’s time to move beyond this false choice. As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits, should be more honest about the reality of the work and must strengthen the rights and voice of workers. So why doesn't CEO Dara Khosrowshahi lead by example and start paying benefits for Uber drivers immediately instead of writing an Op-Ed about it? Why not actually implement the benefits program and then write an Op Ed about why you did it? >"I’m proposing that gig economy companies be required to establish benefits funds which give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off. Independent workers in any state that passes this law could take money out for every hour of work they put in. All gig companies would be required to participate, so that workers can build up benefits even if they switch between apps." Again you're the CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. Why not be a leader and lead by example? Start the fund for your Uber drivers and use that as your inflection point and build consensus based on some action you actually took. >"Had this been the law in all 50 states, Uber would have contributed $655 million to benefits funds last year alone." This is patently absurd. Rephrased - "had we been forced to do the thing that I believe is the right thing this would have been the outcome"
Proven 6y ago
What kind of nonsense is that? Who does NOT deserve better? There's no better at this moment, that's why they're gig workers. I'm sick and tired of this crap narrative. Everyone deserves something, so let's introduce a new tax (or go further in public debt) so that they get what they deserve.
x87678r 6y ago
As the top comment says, corporations like Uber should be pushing for quality free healthcare and strong social benefits. It would help everyone and make gig working much more palatable.
627467 6y ago
Let start by agreeing that while in some cases gig economy seems to disguise promotion of precarious jobs in name of "flexibility" it is imo obvious that employment regulations need to be updated to more contemporary needs. That said, I can't help but read this op piece as: "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel". This strategy is so common lately (read Facebook, Google, etc) that I wonder if these incumbents should pay a price (of being broken up) whenever substantial regulatory changes happen.
- troupe 6y ago
  > "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel". Exactly. Competition is probably the best way to make sure that drivers get the most total compensation (regardless of whether it is coming in the form of salary or benefits). What is being described here would really limit other companies ability to compete with Uber on the terms that Uber used to compete with taxi services.
grumple 6y ago
Ah the classic, “now that we have market share, increase cost of entry for everybody else”.
uptown 6y ago
This is my favorite Uber messaging revision: https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?lang=en https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?la... Maybe some business models aren't economically viable. Maybe Uber is one of those businesses.
adaisadais 6y ago
Uber Driver here: Drivers (well, I can’t speak for everyone) enjoy the flexibility of driving. We also hate the prospect of not driving and not being able to pay bills. It’s truly a catch-22 situation. However, as someone who admires tech, I find that Uber’s biggest problem is not in the way it treats her contractual drivers (that’s a symptom of a larger cultural problem) But in the way Uber handles technology. The teams that handle the driver and the rider apps are totally separate. Each of the apps have slightly different nomenclature within the apps and extremely different interfaces. This makes it difficult from the get go to pick up passengers and to safely get them where they are going. If Uber focused more on creating a great user experience and did the right things to ensure that both riders and drivers were on the same page they would begin to increase in market share. “ A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold. “ -Hebrew Proverb Uber has failed publicly to protect itself with bizarre scandals and shortermist business practices. They’ve failed to distinguish themselves from Lyft. In 5 years I don’t think Uber will be in the rideshare business.
- justwalt 6y ago
  Was this written by GPT-3?
  - adaisadais 6y ago
    “My mind is living on cloud nine and this .9 is never on vacation.” -Kendrick Lamar. Nah, my mind is just pretty wild. Sorry if it was kinda hard to read, bro. GPT-3 is for suckers.
crazy_monkey 6y ago
Of course, that's why you continue to Uberize them.
gregdoesit 6y ago
Can someone explain what the right approach would be in terms of benefits, for a typical gig worker use case: Person with part-time job wants to make some extra money. Registers for Doordash, Lyft, Uber. When their (part-time) work ends midday, they log onto Doordash, as it's lunchtime. Deliver a few meals. Now it's the afternoon, food delivery doesn't pay, so they switch to Lyft. Do two rides, but things slow down. They log onto Uber and finish the day like this. I am not saying everyone uses the apps like this, but this is also a use case. So who should pay and how much in holiday pay, sick leave? Clearly, this person can't be (and doesn't want to be) a full-time employee of either of the companies. Yet they work with all three. The proposal made in this article is not a far fetched one: and it gives a possible solution for exactly this setup.
- wccrawford 6y ago
  Well to me the obvious answer is that those "benefits" shouldn't be coming from the employer in the first place, especially medical. And if you eliminate that and things like 401k, what else are you asking the employer to provide that you couldn't get for yourself with your money you earned? But let's assume that universal medical and retirement are off the table. Why should the employee pony up for that stuff when you're only committing to a dozen hours a week with them, instead of 40? In other words, why should the company commit more than the employee does? The article seems to be saying that the company should commit proportionally to the work from the employee. Well, isn't that what a paycheck is already? If paying them the agreed wages is "letting them fend for themselves", then the solution is obvious: Pay them properly instead, so that they can help themselves. And what about all the people who already work 3 part-time jobs to get by. How is that any different, and why weren't we previously worried about that, but we are for "gig workers"?
  - redisman 6y ago
    And let's face it, if you're a gig worker you're not doing a 401k match with your $10/mo left over after expenses.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  Health benefits-wise, I think a government approach would be the best. Gig workers are "self-employed," meaning they're paying the 15.3% tax on all earnings + personal income tax, so why couldn't that go towards government health insurance?
darkerside 6y ago
Be the change you want to see in the world, Uber. You don't need laws to tell you to do the right thing. You are free to treat your employees (including contractors) as people and not resources to be mined. So do it. Or, get off your moral high horse from which you claim that everybody should be obligated to treat people fairly, and until they won't, you won't either. This is morally bankrupt leadership. Oh, and before someone says they are beholden to their shareholders. I realize that, and it doesn't mean companies need to strip mine the land in the name of profit. Doing the right thing is sustainable, and over a long enough time horizon, the most beneficial action on behalf of shareholders.
cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
I just searched the thread for the words 'fox' and 'henhouse' but nothing came up. Did I misunderstand the search interface?
alex_young 6y ago
Uber wants you to believe that the cost of paying drivers as employees is that you won’t be able to get a car in most places. This can’t be true. Uber replaced a poorly run system that actually covered most places and employed it’s labor force. If Uber and other car services were forced to recognize their workforce as employees, there would be market incentives to support doing so. Uber mentions the subsidized cost of their health plan. This is very creatively failing to mention that the American taxpayers pay this difference. Your ride may seem cheap, but you pay for it in your tax bill. Maybe Uber thinks PR pieces like this one will convince us not to regulate them. I hope we’re not that slow.
mola 6y ago
Uber invented a failed business model that to ensure its success it had to employ lobbyists all over the world to subvert local democracies and manipulate public opinion to remove worker right laws. Using any tatics necessary and fermenting social unrest. All this colossal damage, for a VC subsidize enterprise that never proved it can actually turn a profit.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lalos 6y ago
What PR company is recommending this recipe? So much symmetry, but yes basic PR management: always control the conversation first. "Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good" [1] "I Am the C.E.O. of Uber. Gig Workers Deserve Better." [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-pichai-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-pic...
GoodJokes 6y ago
Crocodile tears. Stop all litigation against unionization and/or classification as employees.
3327 6y ago
I am CEO of UBER, i have been azzramming gig workers for years, now i hacked the system, don’t pay payroll tax or provide healthcare, and now i cannot afford it either because shareholders do not want to pay for it, so i need to create noise and find a bailout, and i think tax payers should do it since clearly we as a company are not willing/able. Cherio suckers
alpineidyll3 6y ago
This is being written because they are worried they are losing their legal fight against forced arbitration. Because they are!
supergirl 6y ago
can't read due to paywall? what's the angle? uber is almost ruined by the pandemic. so he is looking to score some tax money?
spcebar 6y ago
Or, "We are losing billions of dollars, please have more good will for us and also make it more difficult for other companies to enter our space plz."
CptCrunch 6y ago
Are trade unions still as frowned upon as I remember them to be in the US?
tehjoker 6y ago
I am the CEO of Uber. I am attempting to get ahead of a unionization movement by substituting their potential demands with ones my corporation can at least control somewhat. My hand was forced to get to this position and it can be forced further.
zehnfischer 6y ago
The Oxford's fair work foundation(1) is aiming to create better conditions for gig workers. 1: https://fair.work https://fair.work
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
keenmaster 6y ago
It is the government's job to legislate and provide universal healthcare/an adequate safety net. If you expect Uber to provide healthcare to its workers, many of whom don't want to be employees because that would reduce the flexibility of their work arrangement, then Uber will "hire" fewer people, raise prices, and increase average time-to-service. How is that a good thing? Winners from classifying gig workers as employees: - Full-time taxi drivers who happen to get a job from Uber - Well-intentioned people who believe that society improves when there is an appearance of fairer labor treatment Losers from classifying gig workers as employees: - Full-time taxi drivers who don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force Uber to shrink - Part-time taxi drivers who cannot work for Uber as full-time employees - Part-time taxi drivers who can increase their hours but don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force the company to shrink - Part-time taxi drivers who increase their hours and get a job but despise the new, inflexible work arrangement - and their kids, if they have kids - Millions of Uber customers who get worse service for a higher price - Prospective Uber customers who cannot afford the new service and make poorer transportation decisions (slower, less safe) - Foregone business and consumer opportunities due to people not being where they want to be when they want to be there - Gig businesses that never get started, gig economy innovation that never happens, and society at large If the government provides a better safety net, then people will benefit from it no matter the job and no matter the particularities of their work arrangement (self-employed, part-time, full-time, single employer, multiple employers, unemployed...). I chose to study the California Dynamex gig worker case for a business law class and there's really no way around the terrible tradeoffs.
unexaminedlife 6y ago
The real problem IMO is that government in the US isn't able to keep up with how quickly the world is evolving. The solutions thus far are obviously not optimal. The solutions being proposed also probably have issues yet to be discovered. What really needs to happen is a fire needs to be lit under legislators' butts TBH. I think the end result is going to be a problem either way if we end up with something that (regardless of outcomes) won't be changed again for another decade.
DeonPenny 6y ago
I hope everyone sees what he's doing. If he wanted to give people a better life he could as a individual without legislation. What he's doing is putting regulation around the industry that only uber can afford to adhere to, so that no one can afford to compete with them.
andrewla 6y ago
We have finally scaled all the barriers thrown up by local ordinances and regulations, protecting entrenched industries in a sphere of cronyism and exclusion, using regulatory capture to block anyone else from joining their club. Rather than competing on price or quality, they had devolved to just trying to exclude everyone else from their business model, and they were ripe for disruption. What a glorious day! Ok, now to start pulling up the ladder behind us.
benlivengood 6y ago
An increasing percentage of wealth in the U.S. is created by systems and automation; individual people are no longer as competitive and this is reflected in lowered wages. The trend will continue. People who can create systems and automation still have value but the economic machinery will optimize us out of the picture eventually. We're literally training our replacements with ML. There's no rich CEOs or politicians to blame; we're part of an optimization process designed and evolved to find and exploit efficiencies and loopholes in the existing protective framework of government and cultural/social values. The solution is to work together as humans to correct and augment the incentives of the current economic system. Economic growth and activity is only a shadowy proxy of human happiness and satisfaction.
danilocesar 6y ago
TL;DR: "Hey guys, I'm the CEO of Uber! We have problems, our drivers are miserable. But u know what, lets fix everyone's problem first and then we fix ours, ok?"
cgearhart 6y ago
Gig companies should be required to fund paid time off and healthcare programs for gig workers...? How are we so desperate to avoid public healthcare and social safety programs in the US that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company thinks this is a reasonable article to write? This is the definition of an over-engineered solution. Just cut the damn link between employment and basic benefits like healthcare and this manufactured “problem” goes away.
Animats 6y ago
This is the same old Uber, desperately twisting and turning to get out of the responsibilities of an employer. Like a minimum wage. Uber is operating illegally in California, refusing to treat employees as employees after the legislature passed a law clearly making them employees.
- jkarneges 6y ago
  Uber actually attempted to comply with AB5, by allowing California drivers to set their prices and giving them more freedom about which rides to accept. Critics may argue Uber is still non-compliant even with the changes, but that's probably for a court to decide.
  - Animats 6y ago
    From AB5: ...shall be considered an employee unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (2) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (3) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. Uber tries to argue that they're not in the business of selling rides, they're just a matching service. That's to escape (2). Neither customers nor drivers nor courts believe this.
    - jkarneges 6y ago
      That's fair, but the point is Uber tried to meet all of these. The ball is in the state's court now to test and enforce. My feeling is (2) is overreach and has caused unnecessary collateral damage to many non-rideshare businesses. As a non-rideshare business owner myself, I hope (2) gets struck from the law as a result of the rideshare legal battles.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/zlOzx https://archive.is/zlOzx
revel 6y ago
In general it shouldn't be the case that working part time disqualifies someone from earning unemployment or disability checks. It's pointlessly punitive and reduces health, happiness and productivity for the entire labor force.
yesplorer 6y ago
Off-topic, but shouldn't HN be looking at their commenting style and implementing some sort of sub-comment/ replies collapsing style a la reddit? I collapsed the first parent comment and there's no other to read as the entire discussion now is based on that parent comment. I think collapsing comments after a limit of replies or votes is reached will help with the contribution of new perspective to the discourse instead of everyone else following the train of thought of a single parent comment. https://imgur.com/M4qMWog https://imgur.com/M4qMWog
- tethys 6y ago
  There's a second page with more comments (and a tiny "More" link on the original HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2
on_and_off 6y ago
>Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips. At what point exactly can we state the problem as "Uber is not able to build a sustainable model". I am all for disrupting taxis and have little love for medallions but if the alternative needs a salary level you can not live on, maybe it is just not a good model.
deenadayalan 6y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-drivers-employees-california-court-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-driver...
dreamcompiler 6y ago
> Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits — we support laws that could make that possible. Whenever a company says "we support regulation" there's always an unstated suffix phrase: "that makes it easy for us to do what we want to do and hard for our competitors to do what we want to do."

335 points by mitchbob 6y ago

Nursie 6y ago

"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" Riiiiight.

kmorgh 6y ago
As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that. I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PedroBatista 6y ago
  How about quitting? Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Quitting would be an act of protest in argument for a better alternative. Such as a government-mandated requirement.
  - kmorgh 6y ago
    You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations. But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber. In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
    - PedroBatista 6y ago
      I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything. These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen. I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.
- Nursie 6y ago
  Depends on the board, and depends on the circumstance. If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more. Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
  - kmorgh 6y ago
    I agree, the question is unfortunately in many of these cases. Will the lawsuits actually cost us billions, or will we get a slap on the wrist and actually be better off in the end if we take that hit. Because we can grow faster now. See Google or Microsoft anti-trust.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dikei 6y ago
I think he also meant that Uber could not compete, if it does this alone without its competitors doing the same.
- Nursie 6y ago
  This is a bit rich from a company that has undercut many markets by classifying its workers as independent contractors. "I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"
  - vmception 6y ago
    This is a bit rich when you think about who else would be an authoritative source to talk about these problems and draw a blank. Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective. And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated. There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do. I think talking about the challenges have merit.
londons_explore 6y ago
> "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear. We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for. > We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to. I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit. The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified. What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.
naveen99 6y ago
That’s standard tax minimizing behavior from right to left.
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
My take from the article is thay if Uber were to currently offer its "driver-partners" benefits like health insurance, they would legally be considered employees, which neither party wants.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Why don't Uber's 'employees who we don't call employees' not want their health insurance to be paid?
  - jpgvm 6y ago
    Some (not all) may not wish to be classified as employees for various reasons would be my guess. Health insurance is a separate concern and should probably be handled by the state rather than by random corporations anyway like every other 1st world country.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >various reasons // But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?
      - jpgvm 6y ago
        If you are an independent contractor you are protected under a different set of rights vs an employee. The main right people are interested in when pursuing independent contracting is ability to set their own hours, both in amount and distribution. There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago

close04 6y ago

A CEO coming out and saying "we should do better" is simply an admission that they didn't and still don't. I see it as a personal failure of the CEO, an institutional failure of the company, and an attempt to give it a positive "moral" spin in the media. This isn't about what Uber can or should do, it's what everyone else should do so Uber can be in a better light without actually changing anything.

weebwoobfly 6y ago

Now that we’ve grown to dominate the space by fragrantly ignoring and intentionally breaking laws, we support creating new laws that will prevent others who lack our scale and resources from entering our monopoly.

sushshshsh 6y ago
"Government, I beseech thee, make my industry more complex and regulated than even telecom!"
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
I think you meant “flagrantly” but in the case of Uber “fragrantly” fits quite well too.
phyzome 6y ago
But definitely don't make us owe back pay!
macspoofing 6y ago
Of course. This is gate-keeping with a sprinkle of regulatory capture. My favorite quote: >Many of our critics, ..., believe that Uber and our gig economy peers have failed drivers by treating them as contractors, and that we will do anything to avoid the cost of employee benefits like health insurance. Given our company’s history, I can understand why they think that. Pray tell, what is this company history you're talking about? Come on, be specific. And did those policies get you the market-share you have now?

cseleborg 6y ago

This is rather cynical, isn't it? Mr. Khosrowshahi is suggesting that rather than finding ways of making employment more flexible, let's remain in the gig economy and re-invent benefits, conveniently forgetting how long it took to get to the benefits of employment in the first place. The calculation is ridiculous. According to his example, if someone had been working almost full time for a year, they would have accumulated enough funds for a whopping 2 weeks of paid leave OR medical insurance -- but not both! And they couldn't have done it any other way because they wouldn't be so big otherwise. Further, his central argument revolves around the fact that since Uber recruited drivers as gig workers promising them flexibility, their survey shows, unsurprisingly, that their drivers want... flexibility. Proof that nobody needs benefits, for sure. Mr. Khosrowshahi isn't even trying to sound convincing.

Nursie 6y ago
Yes it is somewhat cynical, particularly that bit you call out, effectively saying that if Uber had to do things properly it wouldn't be so big, people would have to pay more etc etc. This is what a lot of folks had been saying from the start was a huge negative - you're using a get-out of employment rights to undercut other companies! I'm sure there must be a way to have both employment rights and flexibility over hours worked. That has to have been done before.
- close04 6y ago
  > we support laws that could make that possible > But America needs to change He's not here to make a case for what Uber should do to make it better. He's asking for America to change the frame of reference so they can look better without actually changing a thing. > you're using a get-out of employment rights to undercut other companies! Uber and the media branded this as "disruption". Uber played by their own rules to get big. With that goal achieved and with no more need to keep running afoul, they're asking for their rules to become the official standard.
rvense 6y ago
He is trying to make it sound like they are trying to do better. Note the layers there. It's tactics. Doing nothing while sounding like you're trying to do something will maybe be a little more sustainable for Uber than doing nothing while putting on a pair a of sunglasses and yelling "This is capitalism, baby!" with a big grin, which would be my summary of the previous tactic. The end goal remains to do nothing, of course, but maybe they've accepted that they need to send more people to more meetings with the Government and pay for a ghost-written whiny NYT opinion piece once in a while.

PedroBatista 6y ago

That's an entertaining soundbite when your business is based on literally extract value from those poor peasants you say deserve better.

aminozuur 6y ago
And doctors extract value from sick people. Nonetheless, a doctor might have good reasons to state that his patients deserver better. Assuming malice is not an effective counter-argument.
- majewsky 6y ago
  Bad comparison. A doctor does not make people sick (or if they do, they're criminally liable). Uber intentionally designed the contracts of those gig workers.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    And Uber doesn't make people need transportation services, or make people need to earn a living by providing transportation services. It's crazy how entitled Americans have become over the past few decades that helping somebody find driving work now counts as "exploitation".
    - majewsky 6y ago
      I'm not American.
      - logicchains 6y ago
        I wasn't referring to you in particular sorry, just the general tone in this thread. The worst part is people are happy to make assumptions without actually even asking Uber drivers what they want.
- tingol 6y ago
  Wow, that analogy is so far off it's insane. You equate extracting value by underpaying employees to doctors curing sick people. Please man, get a grip.

xiphias2 6y ago

It's not Ubers fault that the central banks lowered interest rates to so low levels that assets are a huge ponzi sceme, and people who don't own those assets have to compete for the crappiest jobs to survive. I have met Uber drivers in Brazil that told me that their job got easier and their pay higher since they started working for Uber. And the CEO is wright that I would prefer renting a car when travelling if Uber would get more expensive.

d0100 6y ago
Yep the Uber reality in Brazil is too different from the US. Working as an Uber in Brazil nets you more than what's available for even those that have degrees. Also, cheap drives has made it so even poor people take an Uber, whereas taxis are only for the rich. Uber prices go up, poor people stop using Uber. I'll stop using Uber.
- kopos 6y ago
  Is this without any incentives from Uber? From what I’ve seen in India, the drivers have to work really hard and do 50-69 hour days to get a decent living. With Uber taking a 30% cut, and the driver themselves having to cough up the repairs, etc - it does not amount to a huge jump in income.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    > 50-69 hour days to get a decent living. Wow you've seen a lot to see a 50 hour day.
    - kopos 6y ago
      week
  - d0100 6y ago
    I'm not sure about incentives from Uber, but the few drivers I talked to report at least twice the minimum wage, doing normal total hour amounts (more during the weekend, at night, etc). It also covers any benefits from minimum wage I prefer advocating for Uber getting less % than forcing Uber to hire everyone and destroying cheap and convenient transportation Cut Uber profits but don't force outdated labor rules on something that relies on cheapness to thrive Driving for Uber isn't a career and shouldn't be legislated as one

tareqak 6y ago

The people Dara Khosrowshahi refers to as gig workers that also reside in California should be called, treated as, and receive the full benefits of employees [0]. Uber is fighting this law, and him continuing to call them gig workers only benefits Uber and other companies pretending to be a marketplace between workers and and customers. [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates-sue-california-over-ab5-gig-worker-law/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates-sue-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(20...

rmrfstar 6y ago
"Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits." Times have changed. People don't want stable jobs anymore. That's why the industries where workers have a modicum of power (law, medicine, finance, tech) are dominated by "flexible" work schedules.
- thorin 6y ago
  If you offer people stable work, with good pay and benefits, pension, healthcare (in the US), you won't have a shortage of applicants believe me. This myth being spread that people want flexible work is perpetuated by the people who benefit.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    Sorry that my sarcasm wasn't clear. The idea that people enjoy being marginally attached "gig workers" is absurd. Talk to an Uber driver. If they aren't scared that you are a spy from corporate, they will tell you what they really think.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    I want flexible work... The ability to earn some money with zero notice is awesome. The minute you start requiring contracts and working hours, and qualifications, and exclusivity, it has suddenly made life dull. Suddenly you're a drone wearing a suit working 9-5 for 50 years then retiring when you're too old to fulfil your dreams. No thanks!

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I have to say I appreciate the honesty in the title, although I'm surprised that he was willing to admit it.

nix23 6y ago
Tactics, it's like saying i'am the CEO of McDonald and being vegan, but i understand every meat lover out there, now both sides love you :-)
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  I was reading it more like "I am the CEO of McDonalds. Workers at McDonalds deserve (a) better (CEO than I am)"
  - nix23 6y ago
    True, in that case, BUT he says they are Gig-Workers and not Workers at Uber.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      The beauty of English is that it is flexible enough to mean that gig workers deserve better in general OR gig workers deserve a better CEO than him, given how the title is structured.

nix23 6y ago

I Am the CEO of Nike, child workers deserve better, it's the Government's fault.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Despite your sarcasm, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution), and it is the government's job to ensure that the factories are safe. It is also the government's responsibility, not Nike's, to provide education to children and the conditions to pursue it instead of working.
- nix23 6y ago
  >Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution) So Nike is the next best to child prostitution, i get it :) But you are right, the next big question is, should a company have the right to do stuff like that. Witch would be illegal in the country where they have the HQ. Switzerland has a really interesting discussion about that ATM: https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/k... EDIT: Sorry no English version available to translate use: https://www.deepl.com/en/translator https://www.deepl.com/en/translator
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    It certainly is an interesting question. From what I gathered, the initiative calls for companies to companies to respect internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards. I don't think this means that the supply chain must comply with swiss standards an regulations. For example, paying swiss minimum wage in Vietnam would be crazy. I think there is a big disconnect when people judge the working conditions in other countries by local expectations.
    - nix23 6y ago
      No it's really about "internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards" witch should be the standard anyway, with that law you can make those corporations responsible for the shit they do in other country's. ATM that other country have to do it by themselves, an example is Kongo, but they don't do anything for obvious reasons.

undecisive 6y ago

Most people are looking at this cynically, and I agree that it's a stall for time, he's trying to justify paying people the minimum because otherwise all the other greedy pigs would undercut him, etc etc. However, my cynicism goes a level deeper. It is in Uber's best interests for laws to change and make the scene more complicated, so that all operators in this space - including Uber - have to pay more to their workers and have more encumbrances. Why? Well, Uber is an established operator. They have made their bucketloads of money off the back of underpaying their workers, got themselves out of startup status in a way that - if they play their cards right - no other gig operator will be able to replicate. Less competition, less disruption. I think there is an argument that says that "gig economy" should be enveloped in laws that protect the gig worker rights and ensure fair pay and a safety net, without introducing laws that enforce restrictions on the workers. Governments should work to simplify the burdens on individuals, without creating new loopholes for the wealthy. "It's hard" is a valid statement, but not a reason to reject the concept. But I would continue to be fully cynical of any solution that has the top gig economy CEO's seal of approval.

starfallg 6y ago
That's the problem with 'disruption' as the MO for tech startups - they end up creating new business models that may not be any more efficient or better overall for society, and escapes scrutiny during the time that society adjusts. By the time everybody catches on, the damage is done. We need a better way to internalise social and environmental costs. Just because human society has been able to adapt to past technological and social upheavals is not an indication that it will be able to continue to do so.
- treis 6y ago
  Taxi companies have always been crap places to work. The job is (relatively) dangerous, pay is bad, flexibility is bad, and probably no benefits. Didn't help that most cities had a medallion system that enabled a group of rent seekers. And outside of NYC, Chicago, and maybe a couple other cities taxis sucked. I think Uber is much more efficient and better overall for society than what it is replacing. Not a great job by any means, but far better than a taxi company. And when I look back 10 years ago Uber/Lyft are probably top 3 things that have made the world better. It opened up an enormous amount of flexibility when going out at night and eliminated concerns around drunk driving.

marenkay 6y ago

Step 1: sabotage any worker rights established by pushing workers into freelance/self-employed work. Step 2: keep the money for labour costs in your pocket and become a unicorn because people with cash want to bet on the removal of worker rights. Step 3: profit Step 4: do some lame PR, still keep the cash. Change nothing. Because others have to do that. Just not you. All you needed was the money. Companies following that model should not have a high valuation because they exist on borrowed time. Extorting money from a system does not make your business profitable at all, it just prolongs death. Also... is it just me or does Uber seem highly ineffective in operations considering the amount of engineers needed for running the business?

coldcode 6y ago
Uber is not a successful for-profit business in the long run as they make no profits; given free money to be able to subsidize what costs there are (and operating on the backs of people who make little themselves) can exist for a long time before failing. In the meantime richly paid executives and well paid employees can milk it for a long time.
- mnky9800n 6y ago
  And it's not like they become poor or suffer any real consequences when their company fails after never having produced profit ever.
  - papito 6y ago
    Capitalism without risk is da shizzle, yo.
- marenkay 6y ago
  Exactly what I was referring to. The whole business is broken, it is merely a bet on removing worker rights in the long run and that is what it is valued for.
papito 6y ago
I think the idea is to dominate the market and become the primary player, if not the player, in the driverless economy. The problem is, many players are angling for this - Google, Apple, Amazon, Tesla. If you are not efficient and frugal enough, you won't even make it. Also, those other companies have actual viable sources of income, while Uber is at the mercy of VCs.

aminozuur 6y ago

Looking at the comments, Uber is still hated despite the leadership change. Some people hear "Uber" and immediately assume and project the worst. I think the article was well written. And I wonder what the comments would look like if this article was by the CEO of Lyft.

majewsky 6y ago
There's no difference. If it were the CEO of Lyft, I'd suspect that he advocates for it to price Uber out of the market and avoid new competitors. Same as Uber, just with the name tags flipped around.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

Exploit exploit exploit, when the wind turns, use your market position you have gainend and become Paulus.

fastball 6y ago

Does anyone else think its silly that a "PSA"-type op-ed thing is behind a paywall?

rbg246 6y ago

This is fear of being regulated, I think the gig economy is low hanging fruit to regulate and tear apart to pretend they (whoever is in charge) are changing society, he is trying to frame Uber as part of the 'solution' rather than the problem.

frockington1 6y ago
He probably wants regulation. Once you're the dominant player, have Congress build you a moat. It worked great for financial and health industries
- rbg246 6y ago
  True but not too much, he is trying to control the narrative on regulation

walrus01 6y ago

I want to know how many billable hours from how many public relations professionals, image consultants and Uber's own marketing department went into the draft of this before the final copy was published.

nottorp 6y ago

Isn't much of the 'gig economy' trouble because the US has no single payer health insurance?

e12e 6y ago
It doesn't help - but it's not all. There's been some struggle in Norway too regarding foodora food delivery, partly around compensation for riders using their own bikes: https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for-foodora-strikers-collective-agreement-in-place https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for-foodora-...

tomcat27 6y ago

Would Uber be willing to pay a premium initial deposit to the collective fund on the name of all their gig workers they had since the beginning. That would assuage people skeptical about marketplace dynamics for new startups.

adamsvystun 6y ago

If you are able to factor out all the despise you have for Uber, I think the article has a lot of good points. There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor. There is a trade-off for both employers and employees in both agreements. Different people want different degree of benefits. It seems to me that everybody would win if there was more flexibility here, and this is what the article seem to be suggesting. Seems reasonable.

pixelrevision 6y ago
It’s reasonable, just hard to take seriously coming from a company that skirts around laws and regulation as a business model.
thrav 6y ago
It is very reasonable, even if it does benefit Uber. He should really be going the step further and saying, “Health Care shouldn’t even be tied to employment in a developed nation,” but that would be too political. The fact that we have millions who just lost health care during a time when they need it most should be the nail in the coffin of our current system. It’s been hugely flawed for years, and now it’s just a joke. Some problems have very simple, but very big and different from American status quo solutions. People who love markets would still be able to pay a premium for what they want, just like they do now with all the care providers who have totally bailed on taking even the best insurance.
NelsonMinar 6y ago
Why would anyone try to forget all the reasons we have to despise Uber? The company is corrupt to its founding core.
pwinnski 6y ago
"There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor." This begs the question of why there should be an option between those two things. I'm not sure why there should be, except that employers don't like supporting employees and aren't allowed to treat contractors the same way.

throwaway122378 6y ago

Really CEO of UBER? Then pay them more than the 30% you give them

Upvoter33 6y ago

A lot of issues would be solved with a basic social contract to all citizens: healthcare plus a small living stipend. Do that and people can Gig away. Too much is hard to change when healthcare is so attached to full-time/regular employment, and when it is hard to move between jobs/etc. for fear of loss of income.

an_opabinia 6y ago
Most Uber drivers with families qualify for Medi-Cal. Doesn’t it piss you off that the California taxpayer is basically subsidizing a giant corporation and convenient transport for idiots drinking on weekends?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  The alternative framing is that uber is basically subsidizing the state by paying a wage to people who would otherwise be unemployed and require more taxpayer money.
- triceratops 6y ago
  With government healthcare, everyone is on Medi-Cal. Then no one needs to be pissed off. Like sure, it would be nice if Uber gave their drivers enough money/benefits for them to not need government benefits. But then they'd have fewer drivers available and be a very different business. And those drivers would be at the mercy of Uber for their healthcare. That's not a good situation for either party.
sunsetMurk 6y ago
Do you have any links to articles/discussions about this proposed direction? I'm pretty sure I agree... and would like to further develop my opinion about ~this stuff. It's so dumb for an individual to go bankrupt from a random health issue and/or pay a ton of money each month for "insurance" that is basically useless; and also dumb for an employer to be responsible or in control of anything having to do with an individual's health care decisions.

whack 6y ago

It seems odd that our public discourse has settled on the following set themes: - Every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits - The person's employer is tasked with the above responsibility - If a corporation pays their workers less than the above baseline, they are bad. We should shame them, and pass laws to ensure that they pay their workers better - If a corporation decides not to hire someone at all, and operates with a smaller workforce by tweaking their business model, that is perfectly acceptable and even laudable Combine all of the above, and you end up with a world where corporations go above-and-beyond to reduce their headcount, and entrepreneurs specifically avoid labor-intensive business models. Firms like DE Shaw are publicly lauded for making lots of money with a tiny elite workforce, while spinoffs like Amazon are publicly shamed for actually employing hundreds of thousands of middle class workers. All this only worsens the situation for those in the lower-middle-class in the long-term, because now they have fewer work opportunities, and less demand for their labor. Clearly every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits. But instead of heaping this responsibility on the subset of corporations that hire low-skill workers, this responsibility really should lie with everyone. Tax billionaires, tax the upper-middle-class, tax profitable corporations, and use the money to strengthen the social safety net for low-skill workers. That would eliminate this entire mess.

jschwartzi 6y ago
I don’t want to subsidize Walmart with my taxes. That’s exactly what you’re proposing, and in fact what happens. Companies underpay their workers, who end up needing government assistance. In the end my taxes go to supporting a company that I would never shop at.
- cltby 6y ago
  You’re not subsidizing Walmart. You’ve decided that workers should enjoy some standard of living but are unwilling to shoulder the costs of providing it (e.g. through taxes). Instead, you’ve kicked those costs to Walmart. Walmart is subsidizing you.
  - stetrain 6y ago

lsiebert 6y ago

The idea that employees can't have flexibility is BS though.

ilaksh 6y ago

I think that this is the tip of the iceberg. Its not just about Uber. Its not just about the gig economy in general. Its about the entire economy. There are multiple forces at work. One aspect is the actual long-term debt cycle which people don't realize puts pressure on everything. The other thing is the effective de-regulation and loosening of employee protections. Another part is tech monopolization. We actually need an entirely new high tech global economic paradigm. We need to re-invent money and government with advanced distributed protocols. That will allow us to holistically and locally track and regulate resources with a universal basic income (or hopefully even a bit more than basic) while we scale-up deployment of automation.

Ericson2314 6y ago

I and friends have long been saying the gig companies should self-interestedly push for a better universal safety net, so gig works get benefits but the bill is amortized. This is just the....dumb version of that same argument. But maybe this is intentional, because arguing for yet another insurance pool is "non partisan", while arguing for universal heal care will make it harder to lobby both parties.

afrojack123 6y ago

What is the administration cost difference between an employee and contractor? Also, what causes the difference?

Pr0ducer 6y ago

I am the CEO of Uber, and I can gas-light you from the opinion section of the New York Times, because money talks. No other person is better positioned to do something about the plight of gig workers more than me, but I'm going to tell you a story about how we could all fix this together to distract you from reality. I'll throw in some blame to build up a strawman we can all tear down together, while gig workers still get the shaft and I still get my fat payday.

asdff 6y ago
Not a great year from the opinion section of the NYT. Between this and Tom Cotton, I'm convinced the editorial board just looks at the pile of money and the potential virality of these posts, rather than the words written on the page.
threepio 6y ago
Yes! Even his opening premise is flagrantly false: the problem is not that Uber has "failed drivers by treating them as contractors". The problem is that Uber has arrogated to itself all the benefits of an employee-style relationship without incurring any of the burdens. They can't have it both ways. But their business depends on it. Switching to food delivery does not give them a way out of the pain machine. Which is why they have to spend so much money working the refs.
dmamills 6y ago
Exactly, this is essentially 'thoughts and prayers' said euphemistically. Luckily we have the average hacker news commenter to come in and fill us in on why billionaires aren't actually so bad after all. I just don't know what I'd do without this website sometimes!

stetrain 6y ago

There are two points I think that need to be raised here: 1) GDP-Per-Capita has grown steadily and is at an all-time high https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location... 2) Real wages per capita have stagnated since the 70s https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... So in general, productivity per worker has increased. Amazon can move more products direct to your home with fewer people than was possible in 1970. Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these increasing efficiencies. Yet the suggestion that businesses should pay their workers who enable this value proportionately gets responses that we will be squashing economic potential, dragging these enterprises down, etc. Instead Walmart, Amazon, etc. use these great efficiencies of scale to compete on lower prices. Which totally does have economic benefits, but it also pushes out competition. Local stores can't compete with an international megacorp's productivity leverage, so we end up with a Walmart in every town and Amazon boxes on our doorstep. Is that truly an economic plus? It sure is nice in some ways, but are all those warehouse workers Amazon employs really new jobs? Or are they replacing a similar or greater number of jobs that were previously providing those same goods and services in a decentralized manor?

saddlerustle 6y ago
> Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these increasing efficiencies. This is very unclear and it depends on what measurements you look at. Lots of economists claim we've had historically low productivity growth in the last two decades - eg Total-Factor Productivity growth has been very low (~0.5%/year) every year since ~2005.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The little device in everyone’s pocket can do is much that required other people’s time and labor. Purchasing travel, researching real estate markets, checking into a hotel, comparing prices, obtaining product information and reviews, etc. If I need to find something at Home Depot or Target or Lowes, I don’t need a person to help me anymore. I go to their website and it tells me exactly where the item is. All of these little efficiencies add up to me needing fewer other people to help me.

stevehawk 6y ago

Is there any reason to believe the CEO really believes this or is this just the next step in their business model: start raising the barriers to entry by making it more expensive for the competition?

sfard 6y ago

I worked for Dara before. Believe it or not, he is a sincere and honest person. Yes, he cares about the bottom line (as any CEO would) but he believes what he's saying here.

speedgoose 6y ago
Well, I guess Hitler also believed what he was saying.

bogomipz 6y ago

>"It’s time to move beyond this false choice. As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits, should be more honest about the reality of the work and must strengthen the rights and voice of workers. So why doesn't CEO Dara Khosrowshahi lead by example and start paying benefits for Uber drivers immediately instead of writing an Op-Ed about it? Why not actually implement the benefits program and then write an Op Ed about why you did it? >"I’m proposing that gig economy companies be required to establish benefits funds which give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off. Independent workers in any state that passes this law could take money out for every hour of work they put in. All gig companies would be required to participate, so that workers can build up benefits even if they switch between apps." Again you're the CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. Why not be a leader and lead by example? Start the fund for your Uber drivers and use that as your inflection point and build consensus based on some action you actually took. >"Had this been the law in all 50 states, Uber would have contributed $655 million to benefits funds last year alone." This is patently absurd. Rephrased - "had we been forced to do the thing that I believe is the right thing this would have been the outcome"

Proven 6y ago

What kind of nonsense is that? Who does NOT deserve better? There's no better at this moment, that's why they're gig workers. I'm sick and tired of this crap narrative. Everyone deserves something, so let's introduce a new tax (or go further in public debt) so that they get what they deserve.

x87678r 6y ago

As the top comment says, corporations like Uber should be pushing for quality free healthcare and strong social benefits. It would help everyone and make gig working much more palatable.

627467 6y ago

Let start by agreeing that while in some cases gig economy seems to disguise promotion of precarious jobs in name of "flexibility" it is imo obvious that employment regulations need to be updated to more contemporary needs. That said, I can't help but read this op piece as: "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel". This strategy is so common lately (read Facebook, Google, etc) that I wonder if these incumbents should pay a price (of being broken up) whenever substantial regulatory changes happen.

troupe 6y ago
> "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel". Exactly. Competition is probably the best way to make sure that drivers get the most total compensation (regardless of whether it is coming in the form of salary or benefits). What is being described here would really limit other companies ability to compete with Uber on the terms that Uber used to compete with taxi services.

grumple 6y ago

Ah the classic, “now that we have market share, increase cost of entry for everybody else”.

uptown 6y ago

This is my favorite Uber messaging revision: https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?lang=en https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?la... Maybe some business models aren't economically viable. Maybe Uber is one of those businesses.

adaisadais 6y ago

Uber Driver here: Drivers (well, I can’t speak for everyone) enjoy the flexibility of driving. We also hate the prospect of not driving and not being able to pay bills. It’s truly a catch-22 situation. However, as someone who admires tech, I find that Uber’s biggest problem is not in the way it treats her contractual drivers (that’s a symptom of a larger cultural problem) But in the way Uber handles technology. The teams that handle the driver and the rider apps are totally separate. Each of the apps have slightly different nomenclature within the apps and extremely different interfaces. This makes it difficult from the get go to pick up passengers and to safely get them where they are going. If Uber focused more on creating a great user experience and did the right things to ensure that both riders and drivers were on the same page they would begin to increase in market share. “ A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold. “ -Hebrew Proverb Uber has failed publicly to protect itself with bizarre scandals and shortermist business practices. They’ve failed to distinguish themselves from Lyft. In 5 years I don’t think Uber will be in the rideshare business.

justwalt 6y ago
Was this written by GPT-3?
- adaisadais 6y ago
  “My mind is living on cloud nine and this .9 is never on vacation.” -Kendrick Lamar. Nah, my mind is just pretty wild. Sorry if it was kinda hard to read, bro. GPT-3 is for suckers.

crazy_monkey 6y ago

Of course, that's why you continue to Uberize them.

gregdoesit 6y ago

Can someone explain what the right approach would be in terms of benefits, for a typical gig worker use case: Person with part-time job wants to make some extra money. Registers for Doordash, Lyft, Uber. When their (part-time) work ends midday, they log onto Doordash, as it's lunchtime. Deliver a few meals. Now it's the afternoon, food delivery doesn't pay, so they switch to Lyft. Do two rides, but things slow down. They log onto Uber and finish the day like this. I am not saying everyone uses the apps like this, but this is also a use case. So who should pay and how much in holiday pay, sick leave? Clearly, this person can't be (and doesn't want to be) a full-time employee of either of the companies. Yet they work with all three. The proposal made in this article is not a far fetched one: and it gives a possible solution for exactly this setup.

wccrawford 6y ago
Well to me the obvious answer is that those "benefits" shouldn't be coming from the employer in the first place, especially medical. And if you eliminate that and things like 401k, what else are you asking the employer to provide that you couldn't get for yourself with your money you earned? But let's assume that universal medical and retirement are off the table. Why should the employee pony up for that stuff when you're only committing to a dozen hours a week with them, instead of 40? In other words, why should the company commit more than the employee does? The article seems to be saying that the company should commit proportionally to the work from the employee. Well, isn't that what a paycheck is already? If paying them the agreed wages is "letting them fend for themselves", then the solution is obvious: Pay them properly instead, so that they can help themselves. And what about all the people who already work 3 part-time jobs to get by. How is that any different, and why weren't we previously worried about that, but we are for "gig workers"?
- redisman 6y ago
  And let's face it, if you're a gig worker you're not doing a 401k match with your $10/mo left over after expenses.
jackson1442 6y ago
Health benefits-wise, I think a government approach would be the best. Gig workers are "self-employed," meaning they're paying the 15.3% tax on all earnings + personal income tax, so why couldn't that go towards government health insurance?

darkerside 6y ago

Be the change you want to see in the world, Uber. You don't need laws to tell you to do the right thing. You are free to treat your employees (including contractors) as people and not resources to be mined. So do it. Or, get off your moral high horse from which you claim that everybody should be obligated to treat people fairly, and until they won't, you won't either. This is morally bankrupt leadership. Oh, and before someone says they are beholden to their shareholders. I realize that, and it doesn't mean companies need to strip mine the land in the name of profit. Doing the right thing is sustainable, and over a long enough time horizon, the most beneficial action on behalf of shareholders.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago

I just searched the thread for the words 'fox' and 'henhouse' but nothing came up. Did I misunderstand the search interface?

alex_young 6y ago

Uber wants you to believe that the cost of paying drivers as employees is that you won’t be able to get a car in most places. This can’t be true. Uber replaced a poorly run system that actually covered most places and employed it’s labor force. If Uber and other car services were forced to recognize their workforce as employees, there would be market incentives to support doing so. Uber mentions the subsidized cost of their health plan. This is very creatively failing to mention that the American taxpayers pay this difference. Your ride may seem cheap, but you pay for it in your tax bill. Maybe Uber thinks PR pieces like this one will convince us not to regulate them. I hope we’re not that slow.

mola 6y ago

Uber invented a failed business model that to ensure its success it had to employ lobbyists all over the world to subvert local democracies and manipulate public opinion to remove worker right laws. Using any tatics necessary and fermenting social unrest. All this colossal damage, for a VC subsidize enterprise that never proved it can actually turn a profit.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lalos 6y ago

What PR company is recommending this recipe? So much symmetry, but yes basic PR management: always control the conversation first. "Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good" [1] "I Am the C.E.O. of Uber. Gig Workers Deserve Better." [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-pichai-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-pic...

GoodJokes 6y ago

Crocodile tears. Stop all litigation against unionization and/or classification as employees.

3327 6y ago

I am CEO of UBER, i have been azzramming gig workers for years, now i hacked the system, don’t pay payroll tax or provide healthcare, and now i cannot afford it either because shareholders do not want to pay for it, so i need to create noise and find a bailout, and i think tax payers should do it since clearly we as a company are not willing/able. Cherio suckers

alpineidyll3 6y ago

This is being written because they are worried they are losing their legal fight against forced arbitration. Because they are!

supergirl 6y ago

can't read due to paywall? what's the angle? uber is almost ruined by the pandemic. so he is looking to score some tax money?

spcebar 6y ago

Or, "We are losing billions of dollars, please have more good will for us and also make it more difficult for other companies to enter our space plz."

CptCrunch 6y ago

Are trade unions still as frowned upon as I remember them to be in the US?

tehjoker 6y ago

I am the CEO of Uber. I am attempting to get ahead of a unionization movement by substituting their potential demands with ones my corporation can at least control somewhat. My hand was forced to get to this position and it can be forced further.

zehnfischer 6y ago

The Oxford's fair work foundation(1) is aiming to create better conditions for gig workers. 1: https://fair.work https://fair.work

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

keenmaster 6y ago

It is the government's job to legislate and provide universal healthcare/an adequate safety net. If you expect Uber to provide healthcare to its workers, many of whom don't want to be employees because that would reduce the flexibility of their work arrangement, then Uber will "hire" fewer people, raise prices, and increase average time-to-service. How is that a good thing? Winners from classifying gig workers as employees: - Full-time taxi drivers who happen to get a job from Uber - Well-intentioned people who believe that society improves when there is an appearance of fairer labor treatment Losers from classifying gig workers as employees: - Full-time taxi drivers who don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force Uber to shrink - Part-time taxi drivers who cannot work for Uber as full-time employees - Part-time taxi drivers who can increase their hours but don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force the company to shrink - Part-time taxi drivers who increase their hours and get a job but despise the new, inflexible work arrangement - and their kids, if they have kids - Millions of Uber customers who get worse service for a higher price - Prospective Uber customers who cannot afford the new service and make poorer transportation decisions (slower, less safe) - Foregone business and consumer opportunities due to people not being where they want to be when they want to be there - Gig businesses that never get started, gig economy innovation that never happens, and society at large If the government provides a better safety net, then people will benefit from it no matter the job and no matter the particularities of their work arrangement (self-employed, part-time, full-time, single employer, multiple employers, unemployed...). I chose to study the California Dynamex gig worker case for a business law class and there's really no way around the terrible tradeoffs.

unexaminedlife 6y ago

The real problem IMO is that government in the US isn't able to keep up with how quickly the world is evolving. The solutions thus far are obviously not optimal. The solutions being proposed also probably have issues yet to be discovered. What really needs to happen is a fire needs to be lit under legislators' butts TBH. I think the end result is going to be a problem either way if we end up with something that (regardless of outcomes) won't be changed again for another decade.

DeonPenny 6y ago

I hope everyone sees what he's doing. If he wanted to give people a better life he could as a individual without legislation. What he's doing is putting regulation around the industry that only uber can afford to adhere to, so that no one can afford to compete with them.

andrewla 6y ago

We have finally scaled all the barriers thrown up by local ordinances and regulations, protecting entrenched industries in a sphere of cronyism and exclusion, using regulatory capture to block anyone else from joining their club. Rather than competing on price or quality, they had devolved to just trying to exclude everyone else from their business model, and they were ripe for disruption. What a glorious day! Ok, now to start pulling up the ladder behind us.

benlivengood 6y ago

An increasing percentage of wealth in the U.S. is created by systems and automation; individual people are no longer as competitive and this is reflected in lowered wages. The trend will continue. People who can create systems and automation still have value but the economic machinery will optimize us out of the picture eventually. We're literally training our replacements with ML. There's no rich CEOs or politicians to blame; we're part of an optimization process designed and evolved to find and exploit efficiencies and loopholes in the existing protective framework of government and cultural/social values. The solution is to work together as humans to correct and augment the incentives of the current economic system. Economic growth and activity is only a shadowy proxy of human happiness and satisfaction.

danilocesar 6y ago

TL;DR: "Hey guys, I'm the CEO of Uber! We have problems, our drivers are miserable. But u know what, lets fix everyone's problem first and then we fix ours, ok?"

cgearhart 6y ago

Gig companies should be required to fund paid time off and healthcare programs for gig workers...? How are we so desperate to avoid public healthcare and social safety programs in the US that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company thinks this is a reasonable article to write? This is the definition of an over-engineered solution. Just cut the damn link between employment and basic benefits like healthcare and this manufactured “problem” goes away.

Animats 6y ago

This is the same old Uber, desperately twisting and turning to get out of the responsibilities of an employer. Like a minimum wage. Uber is operating illegally in California, refusing to treat employees as employees after the legislature passed a law clearly making them employees.

jkarneges 6y ago
Uber actually attempted to comply with AB5, by allowing California drivers to set their prices and giving them more freedom about which rides to accept. Critics may argue Uber is still non-compliant even with the changes, but that's probably for a court to decide.
- Animats 6y ago
  From AB5: ...shall be considered an employee unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (2) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (3) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. Uber tries to argue that they're not in the business of selling rides, they're just a matching service. That's to escape (2). Neither customers nor drivers nor courts believe this.
  - jkarneges 6y ago
    That's fair, but the point is Uber tried to meet all of these. The ball is in the state's court now to test and enforce. My feeling is (2) is overreach and has caused unnecessary collateral damage to many non-rideshare businesses. As a non-rideshare business owner myself, I hope (2) gets struck from the law as a result of the rideshare legal battles.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/zlOzx https://archive.is/zlOzx

revel 6y ago

In general it shouldn't be the case that working part time disqualifies someone from earning unemployment or disability checks. It's pointlessly punitive and reduces health, happiness and productivity for the entire labor force.

yesplorer 6y ago

Off-topic, but shouldn't HN be looking at their commenting style and implementing some sort of sub-comment/ replies collapsing style a la reddit? I collapsed the first parent comment and there's no other to read as the entire discussion now is based on that parent comment. I think collapsing comments after a limit of replies or votes is reached will help with the contribution of new perspective to the discourse instead of everyone else following the train of thought of a single parent comment. https://imgur.com/M4qMWog https://imgur.com/M4qMWog

tethys 6y ago
There's a second page with more comments (and a tiny "More" link on the original HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2

on_and_off 6y ago

>Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips. At what point exactly can we state the problem as "Uber is not able to build a sustainable model". I am all for disrupting taxis and have little love for medallions but if the alternative needs a salary level you can not live on, maybe it is just not a good model.

deenadayalan 6y ago

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-drivers-employees-california-court-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-driver...

dreamcompiler 6y ago

> Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits — we support laws that could make that possible. Whenever a company says "we support regulation" there's always an unstated suffix phrase: "that makes it easy for us to do what we want to do and hard for our competitors to do what we want to do."