4 ms·
Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the
by natrius 11y ago
Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place.
Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to employ them. The companies make an easy target for this sort of complaint today, but they are middlemen that will be eliminated by decentralized systems.
- littletimmy 11y agoI've been thinking along those same lines. Is Uber the corporation in any way essential to Uber the service? I have a feeling this can be done via a worker's coop. But someone will need to take the initiative to start.
- tracker1 11y agoThere's also the overhead, but a $x fee/year for each driver/user (as part of the first ride fee) would probably cover that pretty easily...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- makomk 11y agoNothing would change, except that there'd no longer be an Uber controlling the prices they charge and the cars they use and taking a cut. In other words, the thing that would change is that they'd actually be independent contractors with control over their own working conditions.
- escanda 11y agoThat's kind of similar to oppose the employee status because eventually employers will meet candidates who don't demand the benefits required by a legal contract. That's why that is simply illegal.
- pgeorgi 11y agoIn the scheme you propose there's also no single entity that defines the pricing at any time, so the nature of the drivers work changes (for example: they can set up their own price structure). Unfortunately algorithms and implementations for truly decentralized auctions (for the pricing) and trust models (for the feedback mechanism) and actually transferring the money without resorting to cash-in-hand (which, for some reason, seems to be highly unpopular in the US) are hard and by design less profitable than setting up a central instance that controls everything for a fee (eg 20% of revenue). You're right that under such a system, every driver would be self-employed with as many benefits as they pay for themselves. Uber isn't that system.
- SlashmanX 11y ago> Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Hailo.
- onion2k 11y agoOne difference would be that Uber wouldn't be taking a 20% cut of the money involved. That 20% is what people believe pays for the benefits Uber ought to be providing.
- natrius 11y agoThat surplus wouldn't go entirely to the driver. Competition would drive down prices. Drivers will make more, but not the whole 20%.
- onion2k 11y agoCompetition would drive down prices. I not sure that's true. The equilibrium price could actually be higher than where the market rate is now. Uber, Lyft, etc are subsidising their products with massive amounts of venture money in order to increase their market share - if they were removed from the equation it's entirely possible that drivers would get a higher fare and the cut Uber takes.
- natrius 11y agoIsn't that having it both ways? Either Uber takes a 20% cut, or it's taking less than that to lower fares. I don't have facts, but I don't think Uber is paying its drivers more than the fares it collects over a significant period of time in established markets.