3 ms·

Interesting how pre-Uber, nobody in the (medallion) taxi business was an employee either. But going against it would have probably upset some local donators. N

Interesting how pre-Uber, nobody in the (medallion) taxi business was an employee either. But going against it would have probably upset some local donators. Now that it's "evil big tech" it's fashionable to bash on it.

jrsj 6y ago
And we all know tech companies & their investors don’t give money to politicians /s
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  From the parent comment: > But going against it would have probably upset some *local* donators In what way is it sensible to classify big tech as a _local_ donor? Hell, the very term itself implies very wide reach.
  - jrsj 6y ago
    The implication seemed to be that it was somehow unreasonable to either see big tech as evil (which imo it often is) and suggested that they were somehow less politically influential or protected than local taxi businesses. In my opinion the opposite is true. Uber (and big tech generally) is often worse than what it’s replacing, and a hell of a lot more powerful politically. They don’t just take advantage of laws or have laws that favor them, they blatantly ignore laws with little to no consequence. There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      I think you're projecting a lot of loaded meaning onto the claim, in the presence of interpretations that don't require making such broad assumptions. Parent commenter could easily have meant that corruption when it comes from local entities is something that the public doesn't have good antibodies for, because of the classic "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" problem. By contrast, putting an issue under the umbrella of "big tech" unites a lot of people under the same vague banner, as people are mad at big <industry> for any number of reasons, especially an industry as far-reaching as tech. This incentivizes politicians to care about an issue that their pocketbooks would otherwise prefer to ignore. (Note that this analysis is neutral wrt the actual goodness of policy, but that's just a basic feature of democracy) It's pretty simplistic to interpret comments only through the lens of "big tech good? No, big tech bad" when a narrower point is being made. >There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it. This lines up pretty cleanly
Retric 6y ago
It’s not that simple, many Taxi drivers are classified as employees. https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf Uber is very much treating drivers like employees in ways Taxi companies don’t. For example, all trips are through Uber as drivers don’t advertise their services. Dismissing people based on User feedback is another. It’s clearly somewhat debatable where Uber falls on the line, but if you’re basing it on the Taxi industry Uber drivers are on the employee side of the spectrum.
- JJMcJ 6y ago
  Example: at least a few years ago Uber forbade drivers to make trips that returned to the original location. Not sure why, but there are certainly legitimate scenarios. For instance, drive to grandma's senior residence, pick her up, back to your apartment for a family event.
pram 6y ago
I mean there were plenty of stories about how predatory the medallion system was too, before Uber. Drivers were essentially debt serfs.
ericbarrett 6y ago
The medallion system in e.g. NYC is a state-run franchise, and until Uber the medallions were an investment unto themselves. Many of the drivers were formal employees of the medallion owners (not to say that labor abuse and political shenanigans didn’t exist, of course).
marcinzm 6y ago
To me a medallion taxi driver is a lot more of an independent contractor than an uber driver. They both drive a car but the former has a lot more control over their day to day activities. Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did. That assumption would be wrong 99.9% of the time in NYC pre-Uber/Lyft.
JJMcJ 6y ago
That switch (cabbies leasing cabs rather than working for cab companies) happened in 80s. Before that they were employees, and in big cities often unionized.

jrsj 6y ago

And we all know tech companies & their investors don’t give money to politicians /s

wutbrodo 6y ago
From the parent comment: > But going against it would have probably upset some *local* donators In what way is it sensible to classify big tech as a _local_ donor? Hell, the very term itself implies very wide reach.
- jrsj 6y ago
  The implication seemed to be that it was somehow unreasonable to either see big tech as evil (which imo it often is) and suggested that they were somehow less politically influential or protected than local taxi businesses. In my opinion the opposite is true. Uber (and big tech generally) is often worse than what it’s replacing, and a hell of a lot more powerful politically. They don’t just take advantage of laws or have laws that favor them, they blatantly ignore laws with little to no consequence. There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    I think you're projecting a lot of loaded meaning onto the claim, in the presence of interpretations that don't require making such broad assumptions. Parent commenter could easily have meant that corruption when it comes from local entities is something that the public doesn't have good antibodies for, because of the classic "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" problem. By contrast, putting an issue under the umbrella of "big tech" unites a lot of people under the same vague banner, as people are mad at big <industry> for any number of reasons, especially an industry as far-reaching as tech. This incentivizes politicians to care about an issue that their pocketbooks would otherwise prefer to ignore. (Note that this analysis is neutral wrt the actual goodness of policy, but that's just a basic feature of democracy) It's pretty simplistic to interpret comments only through the lens of "big tech good? No, big tech bad" when a narrower point is being made. >There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it. This lines up pretty cleanly

Retric 6y ago

It’s not that simple, many Taxi drivers are classified as employees. https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf Uber is very much treating drivers like employees in ways Taxi companies don’t. For example, all trips are through Uber as drivers don’t advertise their services. Dismissing people based on User feedback is another. It’s clearly somewhat debatable where Uber falls on the line, but if you’re basing it on the Taxi industry Uber drivers are on the employee side of the spectrum.

JJMcJ 6y ago
Example: at least a few years ago Uber forbade drivers to make trips that returned to the original location. Not sure why, but there are certainly legitimate scenarios. For instance, drive to grandma's senior residence, pick her up, back to your apartment for a family event.

pram 6y ago

I mean there were plenty of stories about how predatory the medallion system was too, before Uber. Drivers were essentially debt serfs.

ericbarrett 6y ago

The medallion system in e.g. NYC is a state-run franchise, and until Uber the medallions were an investment unto themselves. Many of the drivers were formal employees of the medallion owners (not to say that labor abuse and political shenanigans didn’t exist, of course).

marcinzm 6y ago

To me a medallion taxi driver is a lot more of an independent contractor than an uber driver. They both drive a car but the former has a lot more control over their day to day activities. Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
>Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did. That assumption would be wrong 99.9% of the time in NYC pre-Uber/Lyft.

JJMcJ 6y ago

That switch (cabbies leasing cabs rather than working for cab companies) happened in 80s. Before that they were employees, and in big cities often unionized.