4 ms·

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.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      99.9% of Uber drivers would debate you on that. Flexibility to work when and where they wanted was the paramount reason for most of them to do this work.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      Beyond debate by whom? Are you a driver? It is highly debatable whether the conditions are poor or that drivers do not want this kind of job vs. say, working at McDonald's.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  As long as there's a safety net, I actually don't think sex labor should be outlawed as long as all parties truly consent and there's no drug addiction or shady trafficking going on. And no Uber driver has ever asked me for a bump or picked me up acting high, so I'm sorry but I don't buy that argument. If better jobs existed, drivers could go there now. If any company can fulfill these regulations, I would expect it to be companies that already have market share like Lyft and Uber. If they choose to shut down because they can't meet these regulations and be viable businesses, then I'm not really optimistic about your other argument either. Personally, I'd be even less likely than ever to try and do (or invest in) an Uber-like startup after this decision.

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.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    99.9% of Uber drivers would debate you on that. Flexibility to work when and where they wanted was the paramount reason for most of them to do this work.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Beyond debate by whom? Are you a driver? It is highly debatable whether the conditions are poor or that drivers do not want this kind of job vs. say, working at McDonald's.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
As long as there's a safety net, I actually don't think sex labor should be outlawed as long as all parties truly consent and there's no drug addiction or shady trafficking going on. And no Uber driver has ever asked me for a bump or picked me up acting high, so I'm sorry but I don't buy that argument. If better jobs existed, drivers could go there now. If any company can fulfill these regulations, I would expect it to be companies that already have market share like Lyft and Uber. If they choose to shut down because they can't meet these regulations and be viable businesses, then I'm not really optimistic about your other argument either. Personally, I'd be even less likely than ever to try and do (or invest in) an Uber-like startup after this decision.