5 ms·

If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also

If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Tends to be more like cutting shifts off early or calling people not to come in. It is not this automated app-driven robo labor optimization. People aren't being told to go outside and maybe they'll get called back in 5 minutes, 1 hour, or 1 day. Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though?

gruez 2y ago
>If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Is this a real concern? This seems like something that sucks for the first few days and then everyone realizes what's the new normal and adapts accordingly. I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. It's also unclear how uber benefits from drivers being frustrated at the UI. >Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Uber driver are not "on call". They can sign off at any time. Sure, they might need the money, but in that respect I don't see how that's any different than 0 hour contracts that some restaurants have. >Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though? The point isn't that being an uber driver is a dream job, it's that contrary to your rhetoric of "Imagine a small restaurant doing similar", small restaurants indeed will do something similar, if given the chance.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  > I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. Now, I don't know that there _is_ a better solution that works with their business model; but the answer to that isn't "cheat", it's "your business model it's sustainable".
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? I agree that uber is thwarting legislators' attempt to improve the earnings of uber drivers, but this was the outcome everyone has foresaw, including the legislators. Characterizing it as some cunning chicanery on uber's part is absurd.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      > How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? Nobody is hiring more people to counter the laws "to increase worker's salaries", they're hiring fewer workers to counter the laws that require certain benefits (health insurance) for full time workers. That's a totally different issue.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The actual problem is that it's a stupid law. You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only drive for one. Option two, there are that many full-time drivers and then they sign up some additional part-time drivers to satisfy peak demand, but the part-time drivers are part-time and they're not getting paid during off-peak hours. Which one do you want? Notice that there is no one better off under the first option; the people who don't want to work part-time still have the option not to under the second option, the first just prevents them from doing it even if they want to.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200 drivers to satisfy the peak demand, but they already have 200 more than they can use off-peak. What would you have them do? They effectively need a large proportion of the drivers to be working part time specifically during peak hours. Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. They're not sitting in their cars idling, they're at home doing chores or other contract work and they only get in their car if the app tells them they can get paid. This is not a problem for the people who are satisfied with it, and why are the people who are unsatisfied with it even doing it? If you don't like driving for Uber, don't do it.
- II2II 2y ago
  > The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It is not a new problem either. Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. > Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. That puts Uber closer to the exploitive end of the spectrum than the opportunity end.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It's completely variable. If there is a major sporting event in your city, the demand is going to be much different than it is at the same time of day when there isn't a major sporting event. Demand is affected by weather, public transit disruptions, current events etc. It's not just time of day. > Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. Public transit has internal buffers that absorb demand. You have a bus which seats 40 but typically has 7 passengers. If there is a demand spike, this time you have 35 passengers, but this is still less than 40 so you don't need any more drivers. If that happens with Uber, they suddenly need five times as many drivers. > On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. They could certainly predict part of the demand, but then what? You don't know ahead of time what time of day it's going to rain and cause a ton of people who usually ride a bike to want a ride. There is still a high amount of unpredictable variability in the demand. > Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Let's consider these people then. Their options are to have no job and likely run into serious financial difficulties, take the on-call job to cover some bills while they look for a better job, or take some even worse job than the on-call job, but that might not be worse in a way that has been legislated against, e.g. because it's two hours away and there is no law against having a four hour round trip commute. The only reason they'd take the on-call job is if their other options are worse. But if their other options are worse then taking away the on-call job option isn't helping them. To actually help them you need to give them some options that are better, in which case you still don't have to prohibit the on-call job because then they'd just choose the better alternative once it's available. > Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Then why shouldn't those people be able to do it, and get the extra cash? > Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. Suppose Uber was part of Costco but otherwise operated in an identical way. Is that supposed to make any difference?
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Why? All Uber cares about are the fees it collects, which are dependent on the total number of miles and total number of rides. It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not, unless it can be shown that if they cannot, Uber will not have enough drivers. Fortunately for Uber, there is no evidence that this is the case.
- radiator 2y ago
  > It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not Is the question "are we breaking any laws" not a reason to care?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Given the legal record w.r.t Uber, I think its fairly clear that it is not.

gruez 2y ago

>If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Is this a real concern? This seems like something that sucks for the first few days and then everyone realizes what's the new normal and adapts accordingly. I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. It's also unclear how uber benefits from drivers being frustrated at the UI. >Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Uber driver are not "on call". They can sign off at any time. Sure, they might need the money, but in that respect I don't see how that's any different than 0 hour contracts that some restaurants have. >Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though? The point isn't that being an uber driver is a dream job, it's that contrary to your rhetoric of "Imagine a small restaurant doing similar", small restaurants indeed will do something similar, if given the chance.

RHSeeger 2y ago
> I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. Now, I don't know that there _is_ a better solution that works with their business model; but the answer to that isn't "cheat", it's "your business model it's sustainable".
- gruez 2y ago
  >Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? I agree that uber is thwarting legislators' attempt to improve the earnings of uber drivers, but this was the outcome everyone has foresaw, including the legislators. Characterizing it as some cunning chicanery on uber's part is absurd.
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    > How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? Nobody is hiring more people to counter the laws "to increase worker's salaries", they're hiring fewer workers to counter the laws that require certain benefits (health insurance) for full time workers. That's a totally different issue.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The actual problem is that it's a stupid law. You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only drive for one. Option two, there are that many full-time drivers and then they sign up some additional part-time drivers to satisfy peak demand, but the part-time drivers are part-time and they're not getting paid during off-peak hours. Which one do you want? Notice that there is no one better off under the first option; the people who don't want to work part-time still have the option not to under the second option, the first just prevents them from doing it even if they want to.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200 drivers to satisfy the peak demand, but they already have 200 more than they can use off-peak. What would you have them do? They effectively need a large proportion of the drivers to be working part time specifically during peak hours. Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. They're not sitting in their cars idling, they're at home doing chores or other contract work and they only get in their car if the app tells them they can get paid. This is not a problem for the people who are satisfied with it, and why are the people who are unsatisfied with it even doing it? If you don't like driving for Uber, don't do it.

II2II 2y ago
> The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It is not a new problem either. Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. > Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. That puts Uber closer to the exploitive end of the spectrum than the opportunity end.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It's completely variable. If there is a major sporting event in your city, the demand is going to be much different than it is at the same time of day when there isn't a major sporting event. Demand is affected by weather, public transit disruptions, current events etc. It's not just time of day. > Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. Public transit has internal buffers that absorb demand. You have a bus which seats 40 but typically has 7 passengers. If there is a demand spike, this time you have 35 passengers, but this is still less than 40 so you don't need any more drivers. If that happens with Uber, they suddenly need five times as many drivers. > On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. They could certainly predict part of the demand, but then what? You don't know ahead of time what time of day it's going to rain and cause a ton of people who usually ride a bike to want a ride. There is still a high amount of unpredictable variability in the demand. > Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Let's consider these people then. Their options are to have no job and likely run into serious financial difficulties, take the on-call job to cover some bills while they look for a better job, or take some even worse job than the on-call job, but that might not be worse in a way that has been legislated against, e.g. because it's two hours away and there is no law against having a four hour round trip commute. The only reason they'd take the on-call job is if their other options are worse. But if their other options are worse then taking away the on-call job option isn't helping them. To actually help them you need to give them some options that are better, in which case you still don't have to prohibit the on-call job because then they'd just choose the better alternative once it's available. > Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Then why shouldn't those people be able to do it, and get the extra cash? > Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. Suppose Uber was part of Costco but otherwise operated in an identical way. Is that supposed to make any difference?

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Why? All Uber cares about are the fees it collects, which are dependent on the total number of miles and total number of rides. It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not, unless it can be shown that if they cannot, Uber will not have enough drivers. Fortunately for Uber, there is no evidence that this is the case.

radiator 2y ago
> It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not Is the question "are we breaking any laws" not a reason to care?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Given the legal record w.r.t Uber, I think its fairly clear that it is not.