5 ms·

> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for,

> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. This will ultimately accelerate the ability of the strongest companies to destroy their competition and potential competition. If Uber doesn't bleed to death financially first, that will be Uber due to their global scale. Uber may not realize it because they're stupid, but this bolsters survival of the strongest in the segment. They can easily kill off competition using this by eating the labor supply. Someone that would have previously worked for multiple companies - trivially flipping between services as it was most ideal for the driver to grab a fare - will no longer be available for multiple companies at the same time. They'll now largely hold a normal job and will not want to work for multiple companies, pulling two shifts per day. Sure, there may be exceptions of drivers that want to pull a weekend job with another service or work two jobs per day, but exceptions is all they'll be. This will narrow the market winners dramatically and quickly. Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple. If I were Uber I'd abuse the stock market for funding to pay artificially high wages to the labor supply (get all the best drivers), and I'd hire more drivers than I absolutely need (deprive the competition), and begin this killing process immediately. I'd go one market to the next, using Uber's market cap as the funding base to monopolize each market. This type of ruling makes labor supply a competitive advantage to whichever company can acquire the most and best drivers. A global ride hailing app will be advantaged over the smaller local/regional competition accordingly. The next ride hailing app in the market that wants to get started will find no available labor supply to compete with. Welcome to competition stagnation. And of course then the moronic regulators will come back around, having created a monster, and they'll have to pursue anti-trust (or the equivalent) against the market winner they helped to cause.

belter 5y ago
Speaking about financials...The court ruled that in certain cases drivers can claim overdue salary. Uber had according to statistics approximately 5,200 drivers in NL on December 2019.
dnautics 5y ago
> And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse. I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.
- arenaninja 5y ago
  > It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both. That's definitely illegal.
    - arenaninja 5y ago
      I appreciate the concern but I don't do it. What are the statutes against this? Is it a felony or misdemeanor?
Volundr 5y ago
> They can easily kill off competition using this by eating the labor supply. I'm not at all sure they can. You haven't really explained here why Uber is apparently capable of hiring all drivers and starving the labor pool, yet Applebees can't use the same strategy for cooks, or Amazon the same strategy for warehouse workers or software engineers. Calling them "moronic regulators" without explaining why the same model that works in other markets can't work in this one isn't all that compelling.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  There are meaningful alternatives for your examples. If you didn't want to work at Applebees, you could work at Chilis. Right now, I would be willing to bet that a large majority of Lyft drivers also drive for Uber. Uber is so much larger that there is no real alternative. If the law makes it so that drivers can choose only one rideshare app, they will all choose Uber because its bigger.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    This is an extraordinary claim, this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. The idea that Uber would pay drivers so much to have extra drivers just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The idea that there would be no suitable drivers left to other firms to hire is absurd. If any of this claim made sence, then this would have happened 50 years ago, we've had drivers around for a while. Yet it does not happen in haulage where drivers are actual professionals, it does not happen for solicitors where labour supply is way more constrained. What do you have to backup your claim?
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      > this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system). Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare companies _already_ share their drivers. The amount of drivers who drive for Lyft only is vanishingly small. If you force all those drivers to choose, they will choose Uber and Lyft will die.
aembleton 5y ago
> Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple. What does "lean in to killing off the competition" mean? I don't understand what you mean by lean in.

belter 5y ago

Speaking about financials...The court ruled that in certain cases drivers can claim overdue salary. Uber had according to statistics approximately 5,200 drivers in NL on December 2019.

dnautics 5y ago

> And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse. I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.

arenaninja 5y ago
> It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both. That's definitely illegal.
  - arenaninja 5y ago
    I appreciate the concern but I don't do it. What are the statutes against this? Is it a felony or misdemeanor?

Volundr 5y ago

> They can easily kill off competition using this by eating the labor supply. I'm not at all sure they can. You haven't really explained here why Uber is apparently capable of hiring all drivers and starving the labor pool, yet Applebees can't use the same strategy for cooks, or Amazon the same strategy for warehouse workers or software engineers. Calling them "moronic regulators" without explaining why the same model that works in other markets can't work in this one isn't all that compelling.

dahfizz 5y ago
There are meaningful alternatives for your examples. If you didn't want to work at Applebees, you could work at Chilis. Right now, I would be willing to bet that a large majority of Lyft drivers also drive for Uber. Uber is so much larger that there is no real alternative. If the law makes it so that drivers can choose only one rideshare app, they will all choose Uber because its bigger.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  This is an extraordinary claim, this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. The idea that Uber would pay drivers so much to have extra drivers just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The idea that there would be no suitable drivers left to other firms to hire is absurd. If any of this claim made sence, then this would have happened 50 years ago, we've had drivers around for a while. Yet it does not happen in haulage where drivers are actual professionals, it does not happen for solicitors where labour supply is way more constrained. What do you have to backup your claim?
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system). Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare companies _already_ share their drivers. The amount of drivers who drive for Lyft only is vanishingly small. If you force all those drivers to choose, they will choose Uber and Lyft will die.

aembleton 5y ago

> Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple. What does "lean in to killing off the competition" mean? I don't understand what you mean by lean in.