4 ms·

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and work

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 6y ago
If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Companies like that don't need to have a viable business model, they just need to go public and make a few people a ton of money. They don't care whether Uber is viable, they care about how many billions they can earn off of its perceived and inflated, short-term value.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.
- unishark 6y ago
  > Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). Let's not forget that in that world uber drivers are unemployed while taxi drivers make more money.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    In that world customers flow back to the many minicab companies and Uber competitors in London, which will need to take on more drivers. It's not like Uber is the only app like this in London. I have at least four different ones on my app, and Uber is rarely the cheapest as it is.
    - unishark 6y ago
      So minicab companies pay more and charge less than uber? How does that work economically? And wouldn't everyone just switch to the mincab companies, both drivers and passengers, if that's the case?
      - vidarh 6y ago
        Varies very much by company. Many of them are small operators covering much smaller areas than Uber. Many of them will intentionally keep far fewer drivers available to keep their drivers busier. I'm sure there are plenty who are much worse than Uber too, and there's plenty of room to get rid of more of these operators. Uber has captured market share by being visible, and covering the whole city so you don't need to care which companies cover where you are. There are a few others that covers all of London and aim for the same over-supply of drivers, and most of them are not cheaper.
      - phatfish 6y ago
        Is it impossible to operate a mini-cab business more efficiently than Uber to a similar standard? I suspect it's pretty hard NOT to.
- skocznymroczny 6y ago
  I know it's popular to criticize Uber and similar apps nowadays, but when they launched, they were a breath of fresh air. It allowed you to get from point A to B in a new, clean car, without having to negotiate the price and without the risk of taxi driver scamming you for money (especially tourists who don't speak local languages fall victim to taxi drivers) or taking you on a much longer route on purpose. Also the phone app is much more convenient and safer than calling a taxi company to arrange a pickup. I don't want to go back to times before Uber, and I am glad 'traditional' taxi companies have also adopted the mobile app model.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    That may have been the case elsewhere, but in London there were already several minicab companies that had apps before Uber.
- grumple 6y ago
  Wasn’t the gig economy part of regular cab driving? Sure they had medallion requirements, but cab drivers in US cities always worked whenever they wanted (usually when it was busy).
ascorbic 6y ago
If the company can't afford to pay for the legally-required benefits then they need to look at their business model. These are not optional.
TLightful 6y ago
On the other hand, might as well rinse Uber while they're still trading. To be clear, if Uber are unprofitable, that's a business model problem, not a worker problem.
mattvot 6y ago
I think that is kind of the point. If the company can’t take enough revenue to pay its way fairly, then the UK Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled it’s not a business for the UK. Overly simplified solution: Raise prices to cover a decent wage.
blackoil 6y ago
I have a brilliant business model which has been historically proven to had revolutionised agriculture. But these pesky politicians with no sense don't allow for slavery.
fallingfrog 6y ago
Somehow, taxi companies have been making this work for 100 years.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E 6y ago

If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Companies like that don't need to have a viable business model, they just need to go public and make a few people a ton of money. They don't care whether Uber is viable, they care about how many billions they can earn off of its perceived and inflated, short-term value.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.

unishark 6y ago
> Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market). Let's not forget that in that world uber drivers are unemployed while taxi drivers make more money.
- vidarh 6y ago
  In that world customers flow back to the many minicab companies and Uber competitors in London, which will need to take on more drivers. It's not like Uber is the only app like this in London. I have at least four different ones on my app, and Uber is rarely the cheapest as it is.
  - unishark 6y ago
    So minicab companies pay more and charge less than uber? How does that work economically? And wouldn't everyone just switch to the mincab companies, both drivers and passengers, if that's the case?
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Varies very much by company. Many of them are small operators covering much smaller areas than Uber. Many of them will intentionally keep far fewer drivers available to keep their drivers busier. I'm sure there are plenty who are much worse than Uber too, and there's plenty of room to get rid of more of these operators. Uber has captured market share by being visible, and covering the whole city so you don't need to care which companies cover where you are. There are a few others that covers all of London and aim for the same over-supply of drivers, and most of them are not cheaper.
    - phatfish 6y ago
      Is it impossible to operate a mini-cab business more efficiently than Uber to a similar standard? I suspect it's pretty hard NOT to.
skocznymroczny 6y ago
I know it's popular to criticize Uber and similar apps nowadays, but when they launched, they were a breath of fresh air. It allowed you to get from point A to B in a new, clean car, without having to negotiate the price and without the risk of taxi driver scamming you for money (especially tourists who don't speak local languages fall victim to taxi drivers) or taking you on a much longer route on purpose. Also the phone app is much more convenient and safer than calling a taxi company to arrange a pickup. I don't want to go back to times before Uber, and I am glad 'traditional' taxi companies have also adopted the mobile app model.
- vidarh 6y ago
  That may have been the case elsewhere, but in London there were already several minicab companies that had apps before Uber.
grumple 6y ago
Wasn’t the gig economy part of regular cab driving? Sure they had medallion requirements, but cab drivers in US cities always worked whenever they wanted (usually when it was busy).

ascorbic 6y ago

If the company can't afford to pay for the legally-required benefits then they need to look at their business model. These are not optional.

TLightful 6y ago

On the other hand, might as well rinse Uber while they're still trading. To be clear, if Uber are unprofitable, that's a business model problem, not a worker problem.

mattvot 6y ago

I think that is kind of the point. If the company can’t take enough revenue to pay its way fairly, then the UK Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled it’s not a business for the UK. Overly simplified solution: Raise prices to cover a decent wage.

blackoil 6y ago

I have a brilliant business model which has been historically proven to had revolutionised agriculture. But these pesky politicians with no sense don't allow for slavery.

fallingfrog 6y ago

Somehow, taxi companies have been making this work for 100 years.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]