4 ms·

Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as

Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a better legal framework for gig workers until self driving technology catches up. Its best hope to make it work (and what Uber is lobbying for) is a third 'worker' classification between contractor and employee like what the UK has.

justapassenger 6y ago
Goal of the government isn't to make marketplaces efficient. Regulations focuses more on making them "fair", "safe" and "non-discriminator". Note - definition of those is very political and open to huge interpretations. Gig-working enjoyed unregulated market, which is great for efficiency. But law is catching up now. Note - I'm not arguing that laws passed by government are correct. But they're in line with what government thinks it should be doing, and how they act in other business areas.
- thu2111 6y ago
  But was Uber unfair and unsafe? That's very hard to argue, especially when compared to the prior reality rather than a theoretical perfection.
  - dtech 6y ago
    Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
    - TallGuyShort 6y ago
      So if Uber does shut down, how are drivers better off than if they simply chose not to drive for Uber? (or Lyft)
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        Either companies will fill the gap left by Uber in a way that gives drivers a better version than they had before, or drivers will find other work. This same faulty argument is made often to argue you shouldn’t reduce exploitative child or sex labor, especially in developing countries, but it’s not valid. If Uber employment option is exploitative, you cannot use drivers’ own willingness to accept work via that platform as some tacit endorsement that “consenting adults” are each ok with the arrangement, because the exploitative nature creates a duress / desperation aspect that means you can’t differentiate between drivers who are fully aware of the situation they are agreeing to and are happy to do it vs people who were banking on Uber being very different and now find themselves underwater on a car loan and not making enough for health insurance and thus unable to stop driving and look for other work because of a nasty feedback loop or reinforcing problems. Part of a governments job is to set up rules whereby such a situation cannot be entered into in the first place, given that by doing so you become stuck in it under duress (eg not having health insurance, paid rest periods, etc.).
        julienb_sea 6y ago
        I want to point out, it is possible for government to over-regulate a business model out of financial viability. Employees can and often will push for unreasonable compensation or protections. You may argue the model can regress to essentially taxis. But realize that taxis work due to artificial supply side restrictions generally using a medallion system and strict limits on numbers. This is fundamentally different from Uber where there is basically no restriction on supply.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I do agree, it’s not an easy problem. But I think in the case of Uber it’s beyond debate that drivers, as an overall class, are not better off “having the freedom” to work under Uber’s (or other firm’s) poor conditions. I’d say the same thing of Amazon warehouse workers too. The conditions of these employment agreements should become legally not possible, so that workers don’t become effectively indentured servants to a working agreement that makes them worse off than some societally agreed standard, and feeling trapped and having the bad working conditions create a feedback mechanism bu which they can’t realistically choose to stop that working agreement and seek betterment. These examples, in American standards, are egregious, nowhere close to any boundary where the government is asking unreasonable concessions of Uber. If meeting these conditions doesn’t allow Uber to remain financially solvent, then Uber is not and never was a business, only a scam.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Except in this case they make it less fair, safe and non-discriminatory because those in government think they can ignore basic economics.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    A government can ignore "basic economics" (bit of a vauge term), the government creates the environment that businesses exist in. If "basic economics" produce a result that is clearly unethical or a detriment to society then it can be ignored.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      You're missing the point. The environment being created makes rides less fair, safe and non-discriminatory. That is what ignoring basic economics does in this case. What are you arguing for, exactly?
speby 6y ago
I would agree and what's especially bad about it is that these changes complicate what was what made Uber so special. You could quite literally press a button to summon a ride and it would show up, you'd get in, and they'd take you to exactly where you inputted, and then you'd get out, no other fussiness to deal with like tipping or unpredictable pricing, etc. These changes make Uber become more like the traditional taxi world, which is quite honestly what people hated about taxis but had to live with anyways because it was such a regulated environment and filled with cronies in many cities.
- pishpash 6y ago
  You vote for politicians whose ideology is to micromanage your life including taking a cut of your money, you get exactly that.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    This is not it. The problem is that the law does not account for ‘gig workers’, so produces are shoehorned into one extreme or the other. I don’t think that Uber drivers should be employees, but I think the law should afford (enforce companies to give) them more protection than they get as ‘contractors’. It’s funny - the laws and regulations changed to accommodate ride sharing, creating specific schemes for them. But it hasn’t for this new bread of worker.
diebeforei485 6y ago
Did Lyft figure out another legal way to do this? Or are they simply ignoring AB5?

justapassenger 6y ago

Goal of the government isn't to make marketplaces efficient. Regulations focuses more on making them "fair", "safe" and "non-discriminator". Note - definition of those is very political and open to huge interpretations. Gig-working enjoyed unregulated market, which is great for efficiency. But law is catching up now. Note - I'm not arguing that laws passed by government are correct. But they're in line with what government thinks it should be doing, and how they act in other business areas.

thu2111 6y ago
But was Uber unfair and unsafe? That's very hard to argue, especially when compared to the prior reality rather than a theoretical perfection.
- dtech 6y ago
  Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
  - TallGuyShort 6y ago
    So if Uber does shut down, how are drivers better off than if they simply chose not to drive for Uber? (or Lyft)
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      Either companies will fill the gap left by Uber in a way that gives drivers a better version than they had before, or drivers will find other work. This same faulty argument is made often to argue you shouldn’t reduce exploitative child or sex labor, especially in developing countries, but it’s not valid. If Uber employment option is exploitative, you cannot use drivers’ own willingness to accept work via that platform as some tacit endorsement that “consenting adults” are each ok with the arrangement, because the exploitative nature creates a duress / desperation aspect that means you can’t differentiate between drivers who are fully aware of the situation they are agreeing to and are happy to do it vs people who were banking on Uber being very different and now find themselves underwater on a car loan and not making enough for health insurance and thus unable to stop driving and look for other work because of a nasty feedback loop or reinforcing problems. Part of a governments job is to set up rules whereby such a situation cannot be entered into in the first place, given that by doing so you become stuck in it under duress (eg not having health insurance, paid rest periods, etc.).
      - julienb_sea 6y ago
        I want to point out, it is possible for government to over-regulate a business model out of financial viability. Employees can and often will push for unreasonable compensation or protections. You may argue the model can regress to essentially taxis. But realize that taxis work due to artificial supply side restrictions generally using a medallion system and strict limits on numbers. This is fundamentally different from Uber where there is basically no restriction on supply.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I do agree, it’s not an easy problem. But I think in the case of Uber it’s beyond debate that drivers, as an overall class, are not better off “having the freedom” to work under Uber’s (or other firm’s) poor conditions. I’d say the same thing of Amazon warehouse workers too. The conditions of these employment agreements should become legally not possible, so that workers don’t become effectively indentured servants to a working agreement that makes them worse off than some societally agreed standard, and feeling trapped and having the bad working conditions create a feedback mechanism bu which they can’t realistically choose to stop that working agreement and seek betterment. These examples, in American standards, are egregious, nowhere close to any boundary where the government is asking unreasonable concessions of Uber. If meeting these conditions doesn’t allow Uber to remain financially solvent, then Uber is not and never was a business, only a scam.
pishpash 6y ago
Except in this case they make it less fair, safe and non-discriminatory because those in government think they can ignore basic economics.
- phatfish 6y ago
  A government can ignore "basic economics" (bit of a vauge term), the government creates the environment that businesses exist in. If "basic economics" produce a result that is clearly unethical or a detriment to society then it can be ignored.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    You're missing the point. The environment being created makes rides less fair, safe and non-discriminatory. That is what ignoring basic economics does in this case. What are you arguing for, exactly?

speby 6y ago

I would agree and what's especially bad about it is that these changes complicate what was what made Uber so special. You could quite literally press a button to summon a ride and it would show up, you'd get in, and they'd take you to exactly where you inputted, and then you'd get out, no other fussiness to deal with like tipping or unpredictable pricing, etc. These changes make Uber become more like the traditional taxi world, which is quite honestly what people hated about taxis but had to live with anyways because it was such a regulated environment and filled with cronies in many cities.

pishpash 6y ago
You vote for politicians whose ideology is to micromanage your life including taking a cut of your money, you get exactly that.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  This is not it. The problem is that the law does not account for ‘gig workers’, so produces are shoehorned into one extreme or the other. I don’t think that Uber drivers should be employees, but I think the law should afford (enforce companies to give) them more protection than they get as ‘contractors’. It’s funny - the laws and regulations changed to accommodate ride sharing, creating specific schemes for them. But it hasn’t for this new bread of worker.

diebeforei485 6y ago

Did Lyft figure out another legal way to do this? Or are they simply ignoring AB5?