4 ms·

The primary "innovation" of Uber is political, not technological. They've managed to circumvent labor protections and at the same time position themselves as th

by yedava 2y ago

The primary "innovation" of Uber is political, not technological. They've managed to circumvent labor protections and at the same time position themselves as the middleman between drivers and riders. In another Universe, a technology company would develop software that taxi companies can use to provide the same services that Uber does. But that wouldn't be as profitable as there wouldn't be scope for labor exploitation.

mhb 2y ago
Sort of like this?: https://drivers.coop/ https://drivers.coop/ "We are a driver-owned cooperative in New York City specializing in paratransit and Non-Emergency Medical Transportation."
alvah 2y ago
In this other universe, would the entrenched taxi operators willingly embrace new technology such as this, rather than continuing to provide a sub-par experience enabled by their entrenched position & political lobbying? Because that certainly didn't happen in this universe.
cwalv 2y ago
Uber drivers themselves never seem to complain about this. It's almost like those labor protections come with a bunch of other baggage that makes the tradeoff not worth it to them. Of course, it's easy to explain away any perceived 'tradeoffs' with them just being too stupid to know better, but I don't think that's accurate.
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  > Uber drivers themselves never seem to complain about this why would they? uber takes more money from the customers than taxis got in the past, pay less to the drivers and less taxes. Everybody pays for uber benefit
  - thfuran 2y ago
    Most people don't like being underpaid.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Obviously nobody wants to be underpaid, but not everyone wants to be employee-level on the clock for uber the entire time they're logged in and taking offers.
- peterashford 2y ago
  There's a lot of Uber drivers in NZ who did complain about this. It's the reason for the court case that the article is about
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Concretely, "a lot" in this court case is "4". Do we have a strong reason to believe that the number of disgruntled drivers is significantly higher in NZ than in other countries? This wouldn't be the first time a few disgruntled people got a government to "fix" a system that the vast majority felt was working fine for them.
zappb 2y ago
Like Curb and the numerous taxi specific apps?
tqi 2y ago
Taxi "companies" were also political innovations, where the medallion system kept supply far below demand and prevented any kind of meaningful competition, allowing drivers free reign to play games like "my cc machine is broken" or "i don't take rides to that destination"
dehrmann 2y ago
Moderate disagree. It connects drives with riders much better than before, making taxis viable outside urban cores. There are numerous stories of "try hailing/calling a cab in X scenario" where cabs just wouldn't show up. The innovation you mention also varies by jurisdiction. In some places, Uber's are licensed taxis, so clearly there's more than just breaking the medallion monopoly.

by yedava 2y ago

mhb 2y ago

Sort of like this?: https://drivers.coop/ https://drivers.coop/ "We are a driver-owned cooperative in New York City specializing in paratransit and Non-Emergency Medical Transportation."

alvah 2y ago

In this other universe, would the entrenched taxi operators willingly embrace new technology such as this, rather than continuing to provide a sub-par experience enabled by their entrenched position & political lobbying? Because that certainly didn't happen in this universe.

cwalv 2y ago

Uber drivers themselves never seem to complain about this. It's almost like those labor protections come with a bunch of other baggage that makes the tradeoff not worth it to them. Of course, it's easy to explain away any perceived 'tradeoffs' with them just being too stupid to know better, but I don't think that's accurate.

sabbaticaldev 2y ago
> Uber drivers themselves never seem to complain about this why would they? uber takes more money from the customers than taxis got in the past, pay less to the drivers and less taxes. Everybody pays for uber benefit
- thfuran 2y ago
  Most people don't like being underpaid.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Obviously nobody wants to be underpaid, but not everyone wants to be employee-level on the clock for uber the entire time they're logged in and taking offers.
peterashford 2y ago
There's a lot of Uber drivers in NZ who did complain about this. It's the reason for the court case that the article is about
- lolinder 2y ago
  Concretely, "a lot" in this court case is "4". Do we have a strong reason to believe that the number of disgruntled drivers is significantly higher in NZ than in other countries? This wouldn't be the first time a few disgruntled people got a government to "fix" a system that the vast majority felt was working fine for them.

zappb 2y ago

Like Curb and the numerous taxi specific apps?

tqi 2y ago

Taxi "companies" were also political innovations, where the medallion system kept supply far below demand and prevented any kind of meaningful competition, allowing drivers free reign to play games like "my cc machine is broken" or "i don't take rides to that destination"

dehrmann 2y ago

Moderate disagree. It connects drives with riders much better than before, making taxis viable outside urban cores. There are numerous stories of "try hailing/calling a cab in X scenario" where cabs just wouldn't show up. The innovation you mention also varies by jurisdiction. In some places, Uber's are licensed taxis, so clearly there's more than just breaking the medallion monopoly.