3 ms·

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 s

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.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      > both preferred 25 hours with flexibility That's not an option though. The option uber gives is "maybe 25, maybe not, you'll find out on the day". That's still "how do we keep uber in business". There are alternatives like good quality overprovisioned public transport which can take most of those customers. It can also deal with peak situations like events. It's a sunk cost fallacy to think of uber as some kind of last resort employer that can ignore the rules.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > That's not an option though. The option uber gives is "maybe 25, maybe not, you'll find out on the day". It's 25 when it's 25. Which you can still have a preference for when the alternative is 10, or the alternative is "40 hours but your hours are 9PM to 1AM and then 5AM to 9AM". > That's still "how do we keep uber in business". Uber is still in business when they require you to work split shifts in the wee hours. We're trying to save drivers and riders from the consequences of foolish rules. > There are alternatives like good quality overprovisioned public transport which can take most of those customers. Overprovisioned public transport is just Uber with lower efficiency. You have a municipal bus with zero or one passengers instead of a smaller private car with one passenger or avoid the trip because you know before you start that no one is going there. > It can also deal with peak situations like events. Ten thousand people exit the stadium at the same time and each want to go to a different destination, thousands of which are single family homes in the suburbs. > It's a sunk cost fallacy to think of uber as some kind of last resort employer that can ignore the rules. The assumption is that Uber is bad, but Uber is better than taxi medallion cartels or private cars that then have to be parked in the city instead of picking up a different fare going in the opposite direction.

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.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    > both preferred 25 hours with flexibility That's not an option though. The option uber gives is "maybe 25, maybe not, you'll find out on the day". That's still "how do we keep uber in business". There are alternatives like good quality overprovisioned public transport which can take most of those customers. It can also deal with peak situations like events. It's a sunk cost fallacy to think of uber as some kind of last resort employer that can ignore the rules.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > That's not an option though. The option uber gives is "maybe 25, maybe not, you'll find out on the day". It's 25 when it's 25. Which you can still have a preference for when the alternative is 10, or the alternative is "40 hours but your hours are 9PM to 1AM and then 5AM to 9AM". > That's still "how do we keep uber in business". Uber is still in business when they require you to work split shifts in the wee hours. We're trying to save drivers and riders from the consequences of foolish rules. > There are alternatives like good quality overprovisioned public transport which can take most of those customers. Overprovisioned public transport is just Uber with lower efficiency. You have a municipal bus with zero or one passengers instead of a smaller private car with one passenger or avoid the trip because you know before you start that no one is going there. > It can also deal with peak situations like events. Ten thousand people exit the stadium at the same time and each want to go to a different destination, thousands of which are single family homes in the suburbs. > It's a sunk cost fallacy to think of uber as some kind of last resort employer that can ignore the rules. The assumption is that Uber is bad, but Uber is better than taxi medallion cartels or private cars that then have to be parked in the city instead of picking up a different fare going in the opposite direction.