3 ms·

> 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 im

by 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.
- Nursie 6y ago
  On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees. There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees. I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company. Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion). Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-deal-how-the-hourly-earnings-of-uber-and-taxi-drivers-measure-up-infographic/#5600f6d9689a https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d... >by dodging taxes Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it.. >for their disguised employees. Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      >Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it.. But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning. It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        >It's a very grey area here It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?

by Nursie 6y ago

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.

Nursie 6y ago
On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees. There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees. I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company. Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion). Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-deal-how-the-hourly-earnings-of-uber-and-taxi-drivers-measure-up-infographic/#5600f6d9689a https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d... >by dodging taxes Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it.. >for their disguised employees. Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    >Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it.. But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning. It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >It's a very grey area here It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?