3 ms·

I'm not surprised. Uber and Lyft try co classify their workers as contractors when it comes to taxes and benefits, yet undermine workers abilities to actually b

by c3534l 6y ago

I'm not surprised. Uber and Lyft try co classify their workers as contractors when it comes to taxes and benefits, yet undermine workers abilities to actually be independent contractors when it suits them to do so. If you want to be a platform that helps connect drivers with passengers, then be that app. You can't then go in and set rates, not pay per client, not give contractors the ability to work for the customers they want, etc. These companies have such a strange culture of hubris and trying to skirt the law, its only a matter of time for that to catch up with them.

julienb_sea 6y ago
Part of the reason Uber and Lyft work so well for riders is due to how they structure the relationship between drivers and their platform. Drivers are required to conform to the platform's payment structure. This enables predictable up-front pricing for rides before they are even requested. This enables the surge pricing system, which rapidly ramps up supply to match surges of demand. Drivers can decline rides at will, but if a driver excessively declines rides there is punishment for this. This makes perfect sense as the platform calculates projected rates and surge pricing based on driver availability. Unnecessarily declining rides provides a poor user experience for riders, and riders ultimately can choose to take their business elsewhere. This means drivers need to be disincentivized to decline rides in order to maintain the quality of the platform. Ultimately the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience. The benefits arguments are more interesting, and maybe there does need to be a system for driver benefits like health insurance if they are working full time for the company, but ultimately these costs will fall squarely on consumers.
- c3534l 6y ago
  If your points are true, then all that really means is that there is a structural, economic incentive to not be structured as a platform and that the old model, of having cab companies with drivers who are employed by that company, is the most naturally efficient structure. That's fine, except for the part where they claim their employees are independent contractors, which would be tax fraud if they didn't try to structure in plausible deniability as best they could. That was the criticism I started with: they want to treat their workers as independent contractors when and to the extent that it benefits to do so, and they want to treat them like employees when it doesn't. "the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience" - yes, that relationship has a specific name and that name is "employer." Uber and Lyft want to employ drivers to work for them, but want to avoid paying taxes on it. This is a dangerous game they're playing.
apta 6y ago
Maybe we should consider for a second that the law is broken (hint: it is).

by c3534l 6y ago

julienb_sea 6y ago

Part of the reason Uber and Lyft work so well for riders is due to how they structure the relationship between drivers and their platform. Drivers are required to conform to the platform's payment structure. This enables predictable up-front pricing for rides before they are even requested. This enables the surge pricing system, which rapidly ramps up supply to match surges of demand. Drivers can decline rides at will, but if a driver excessively declines rides there is punishment for this. This makes perfect sense as the platform calculates projected rates and surge pricing based on driver availability. Unnecessarily declining rides provides a poor user experience for riders, and riders ultimately can choose to take their business elsewhere. This means drivers need to be disincentivized to decline rides in order to maintain the quality of the platform. Ultimately the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience. The benefits arguments are more interesting, and maybe there does need to be a system for driver benefits like health insurance if they are working full time for the company, but ultimately these costs will fall squarely on consumers.

c3534l 6y ago
If your points are true, then all that really means is that there is a structural, economic incentive to not be structured as a platform and that the old model, of having cab companies with drivers who are employed by that company, is the most naturally efficient structure. That's fine, except for the part where they claim their employees are independent contractors, which would be tax fraud if they didn't try to structure in plausible deniability as best they could. That was the criticism I started with: they want to treat their workers as independent contractors when and to the extent that it benefits to do so, and they want to treat them like employees when it doesn't. "the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience" - yes, that relationship has a specific name and that name is "employer." Uber and Lyft want to employ drivers to work for them, but want to avoid paying taxes on it. This is a dangerous game they're playing.

apta 6y ago

Maybe we should consider for a second that the law is broken (hint: it is).