6 ms·

> 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"

> 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.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. That only works when the difference in demand between peak and off-peak is small relative to the cost of idle workers. In this case it isn't. > Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known. Then you'll be objecting that the majority of people are classified as part-time because there will be a lot of people who get 40 hours some weeks and zero other weeks due to changes in seasonal demand etc. Also, the result of that would be that in the slower weeks, one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours, and that's obviously not to the advantage of the person whose hours you're cutting. Which in turn implies that the person getting 40 will be signing up for some fresh hell like "you get 40 hours but we choose when they are" and then they're both getting screwed by the change.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      > one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours If these are the upfront conditions, why is that an issue? But the main issue you're getting closer and closer to is: uber's model doesn't seem to be profitable if they have to pay and employ with reasonable conditions. They don't have to be profitable though. We really can let them fail. The reasonable cities can then provide standard overprovisioned public transport.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > If these are the upfront conditions, why is that an issue? Because they might have both preferred 25 hours with flexibility to a forced choice between 40 inflexible hours or 10 flexible ones. > uber's model doesn't seem to be profitable if they have to pay and employ with reasonable conditions. Uber is an app. Their primary cost is paying drivers. They're not going to fail because you imposed this inflexibility on them. What's going to happen is they're going to have fewer drivers and provide less service. But "have fewer drivers" is those people losing their jobs, which isn't really helping them out.

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.

viraptor 2y ago
Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. That only works when the difference in demand between peak and off-peak is small relative to the cost of idle workers. In this case it isn't. > Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known. Then you'll be objecting that the majority of people are classified as part-time because there will be a lot of people who get 40 hours some weeks and zero other weeks due to changes in seasonal demand etc. Also, the result of that would be that in the slower weeks, one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours, and that's obviously not to the advantage of the person whose hours you're cutting. Which in turn implies that the person getting 40 will be signing up for some fresh hell like "you get 40 hours but we choose when they are" and then they're both getting screwed by the change.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    > one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours If these are the upfront conditions, why is that an issue? But the main issue you're getting closer and closer to is: uber's model doesn't seem to be profitable if they have to pay and employ with reasonable conditions. They don't have to be profitable though. We really can let them fail. The reasonable cities can then provide standard overprovisioned public transport.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > If these are the upfront conditions, why is that an issue? Because they might have both preferred 25 hours with flexibility to a forced choice between 40 inflexible hours or 10 flexible ones. > uber's model doesn't seem to be profitable if they have to pay and employ with reasonable conditions. Uber is an app. Their primary cost is paying drivers. They're not going to fail because you imposed this inflexibility on them. What's going to happen is they're going to have fewer drivers and provide less service. But "have fewer drivers" is those people losing their jobs, which isn't really helping them out.