5 ms·
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.
by marcrosoft 6y ago
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again.
It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.
- LargeWu 6y agoRegulation, in general, exists primarily as a response to exploitation. If drivers felt they were getting paid equitably, had fair dispute resolution, had access to benefits, etc., there wouldn't be a need for this.
- nickff 6y agoThe parent's point brings up the fact that the medallion system wasn't particularly beneficial to all drivers (or riders); medallions are good for medallion-holders, which are usually taxi companies.
- Pfhreak 6y agoHas anyone suggested the solution to this is to make another medallion system? It seems like the OP was putting the cart before the horse.
- marcrosoft 6y agoThe medallion system was regulation at its worst. I’m suggesting we look to our past so we don’t repeat it.
- three_seagrass 6y agoHow is California enforcing it's laws a repeat of a medallion licensing system?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nerfhammer 6y agowhy doesn't this happen for truck drivers or traditional taxi drivers, who are also usually contractors?
- xxpor 6y agoFor truckers: a) a class A CDL takes a lot more effort to obtain than a regular driver's licence. there's a much more constrained supply, so you don't end up with a race to the bottom on the demand side as much. b) the quantity of hours truckers can work is set by the federal Department of Transportation. with electronic logging becoming mandatory, that'll cut down even more on people being able to work off the clock. For taxi drivers: you absolutely do end up in this situation. there's just no multi-billion dollar company to make headlines about. medallion owners in NYC are all shady characters too.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marcrosoft 6y agoYou’re right except exploitation occurs as crony capitalism. “You rub my back, I’ll make your competition run through red tape”. Nobody is forcing these workers to do ANYTHING. Regulation would force action.
- three_seagrass 6y agoExploitation isn't limited to quid pro quo or antitrust corruption. It's easy to sit from a seat of having a salaried ~40 hour week job with health benefits and safety standards, which were fought for from past generations, and then scoff when similar people are trying to fight for the same.
- marcrosoft 6y agoThere is no exploitation when you literally tap the screen and accept the rate for a given job in real time.
- jcims 6y agoIt’s also easy to sit in that same seat and interfere with an arrangement to satisfy your own moral stance without actually being affected by the outcome. All of these Uber drivers have phones, why are they always absent in these conversations?
- three_seagrass 6y agoMaybe help me understand how having a phone means you're present in a conversation? There have been class action lawsuits filed by uber and lyft drivers.
- jcims 6y agoThis conversation has been going on for years. I rarely see Uber or Lyft drivers participating and when i do they generally just want the company to take a bit less out of the deal, that’s it.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y agoDrivers didn't file this suit -- it was filed entirely be the State of California and local governments
- legulere 6y agoHow is that similar to the medallion taxi system at all?
- aeternum 6y agoMedallions were first implemented based on the idea that medallion regulations would improve things for both taxi drivers and taxi riders. Limited medallions meant drivers would make more, and riders would be safer as the driver would be known by the city and invested in the medallion. Instead, they had the opposite effect as taxi conglomerates quickly emerged and cornered the medallion market due to economies of scale. Individual drivers could not compete with medallions priced based on 24-hour usage. Most drivers became low-paid employees of these conglomerates. Users suffer because drivers no longer had much incentive to keep the shared company cars clean. The conglomerates lobbied to reduce the supply of medallions to protect their now sizable investment and eliminate potential competition. In this Uber/Lyft case we are also adding regulations which make barrier to entry higher for any incumbent companies. The complication of having thousands of salaried employees is more than most startups can handle, so we are basically cementing the established players Uber/Lyft as the only options.
- sg47 6y agoThe way for Uber to defeat this is to fight for single payer health insurance and universal basic income.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoUBI would kill the gig economy. No one will drive 40-50 hours a day when they can get 50-75% of the same remuneration just sitting at home.
- Cakez0r 6y agoNo, but they might drive a couple of hours a day for some extra pocket money on top of their UBI
- booleandilemma 6y agoThis is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation... If by innovation you mean the abuse of people forced to work in the "gig" economy, then sure.
- txsoftwaredev 6y agoWho is forcing a person to become an Uber/Lyft driver?
- marcrosoft 6y agoAbuse?? Nobody is forced to work anywhere in the U.S. If they can find a better situation they should. Why hurt their situation with regulation?
- Pfhreak 6y ago> Nobody is forced to work anywhere in the U.S. Starvation and rent suggest otherwise. We're not so sufficiently advanced that anyone can choose not to work and expect meals and a roof over their head.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- anticensor 6y agoThere is a solution to the medallion problem: make the taxi licences non-transferable and require taxicabs to be owned by drivers themselves.