6 ms·

Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their illegal busi

by rquantz 11y ago

Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their illegal business model. Always a pleasure to watch.

marssaxman 11y ago
When their business model is only illegal due to a corrupt, inefficient, entrenched monopoly which is just as hostile to its customers as its employees, yes, it is indeed a pleasure to watch someone take on the machine and win.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  Where "winning" is the normalization of precarious labor where the employee assumes all risk and somehow makes even less money than they did in "the machine". Oh, but you got to the club a little faster. Baller, bro.
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    What, a fair wage? Clearly that's un-American.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    I make a point of asking Uber and Lyft drivers how they like it. Lyft drivers universally love it. Uber drivers are less enthusiastic on the whole, but they have generally said it's better than working as a cab driver. I've since stopped using Uber since it's hard to feel comfortable about their business practices, but they're still better than the taxi monopolies and I'm happy to see them pursuing the fight and clearing the way for kindler, gentler services along the same lines. I am generally inclined to think that people should be free to make their own decisions about their lives. Whatever you may think about the risk/benefit tradeoff, it seems clear to me that drivers in Seattle who have the choice choose to drive for Uber, Lyft, or a private for-hire service rather than put up with the traditional cab dispatcher. I can make guesses at why that might be, overall, but I am certainly not going to tell them that they are making the wrong choice.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      To be honest, consider that it may take just one negative review to get fired ("independent contractors", hehe) from Uber (don't know how strict Lyft ratings are). I doubt the drivers that are not satisfied will risk answering you honestly, as you're a person in power to kick them out of their job by a single tap on your smartphone.
      - marssaxman 11y ago
        That's a reasonable point, and I certainly don't imagine that my informal survey results have any scientific validity. I do have what seems to be a higher-than-average sensitivity to body language, however, and I have never seen the signs of stress or guarding that I would expect if drivers were trying to give me the answers they thought I wanted. Perhaps Lyft's hiring process selects in some way for people who have the kind of social awareness and self-presentation skill necessary to fool me, but it seems simpler to believe that Lyft drivers are, by and large, genuinely happy about their jobs.
    - beatpanda 11y ago
      The individual choices of Uber drivers aren't what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the overall normalization of precarious labor that benefits the owners of capital and hurts the people doing the work. It starts to hurt workers everywhere if everyone gets used to accepting all of the risk of employment, not having access to workers comp or unemployment insurance, etc etc. And given the kind of benefits packages tech companies typically offer their workers, Uber's practices are especially hypocritical.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Taxi drivers were already precarious workers, with no benefits. Uber changed nothing in that regard.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Oh, bullshit, as if taxi drivers weren't already contractors without any benefits. Hell, they had to pay to work, by renting a medallion from millionaires like Evgeny Freidman, who can actually afford to buy them. Uber only takes a cut if you actually make money. Here's an article from way before Uber came around: "Driving a Taxi, Difficult in Best of Times, Gets Tougher" - http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
- deegles 11y ago
  Yes, once Uber takes the crown they will behave ethically, operate within the confines of the law and re-classify their drivers as employees with full benefits. They also won't even consider dropping them as soon as self-driving car technology matures. /s
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    It depends on the state, but in many places taxi drivers are not employees either; they are independent sole proprietorships who rent the taxi medallion from its owner. Uber is not perfect but is an improvement over the status quo for both drivers and riders. Once it "takes the crown", we can work on the next step in improving transit.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > re-classify their drivers as employees with full benefits In what way is this an ethical concern? Many other businesses work with contractors. Considering that drivers compete with each other, work hours of their choice, and supply their own equipment, what exactly makes them employees?
    - bitJericho 11y ago
      Seems like a somebody thinks so: http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- ethanbond 11y ago
  This seems like a non-sequitur. The business model was made illegal by people who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal. Uber isn't wrong to push the letter of the law, but no one should be surprised that it will take a little bit of time for the law to adapt to this. Uber's vicious and cavalier attitude towards law in general is really disgraceful. This seems like a classic "ends justify the means" type of scenario, and I'm generally skeptical of these.
  - danhak 11y ago
    > The business model was made illegal by people who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
    - dnautics 11y ago
      Although I am a big proponent of spreading the word about Regulatory capture, it's not quite that simple. A lot of the regulations that exist for taxis really do make sense, given a few contexts: 1) you don't know who is coming to pick you up 2) the ability to contact your former driver in the event of a bad experience is almost nil 3) you have to trust the taximeter 4) taxis have to jockey for a visual hail 5) there is no guarantee that a dispatched taxi will actually arrive. while there are concerns (e.g. safety, insurance) that do warrant a strong rational basis for regulation that are in common between taxis and lyft/uber, etc - a lot of the regulations that are in place do not carry over and those shouldn't apply to the lyft/uber. To its credit, the state of california seems to be making an (if slow) rapprochement between the existing regulation set and a reasonable set... Don't know about other places.
  - antihero 11y ago
    But people didn't vote people in because of their stance on taxis, apart from small vested interest groups. For most people this wasn't even an agenda they thought about, but because Uber exists, and they see an alternative to the rubbish taxi companies, it's coming to the spotlight.
- threeseed 11y ago
  The US is not the only country in the world. Not all countries have a corrupt, entrenched monopoly nor do all countries have the same antagonism towards taxi services. And yes it's great to see someone siphon billions of dollars away from government/taxpayers and into the hands of a select few. It's also great to see them do this by ignoring any and all laws they see fit to. What a shining example of corporate responsibility and ethics.
SilasX 11y ago
Yishan Wong explained it well in a Quora answer about the law being "lazily evaluated" and how the political realities can change by the time the law comes after a business in earnest: https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regulated-out-of-existence/answer/Yishan-Wong?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regula...
- princeb 11y ago
  sometimes I wish a brave soul will do the same with the financial industry (w.r.t. institutional regulation) but alas the law there is nowhere close to lazy eval.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Just as it's much easier to get traction behind an idea with a proof of concept, it's much easier to change the law when you've demonstrated an obviously better solution. A company should never act unethically. That does not make all laws worthy of respect. Just have a very detailed understanding of the consequences.
rquantz 11y ago
Fascinating to see HN's best brightest and their view of the rule of law. How is it good for democracy if a well-funded corporation can flout the law by its very existence? People make the excuse that taxi regulations are unjust. But it is still the law, and for Uber it didn't matter whether the law was unjust, only that it was in their way. These guys are not crusaders for justice, they are profit-seekers who decided the law didn't apply to them and went about their business until they amassed enough power that they could not be stopped.

by rquantz 11y ago

Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their illegal business model. Always a pleasure to watch.

marssaxman 11y ago

When their business model is only illegal due to a corrupt, inefficient, entrenched monopoly which is just as hostile to its customers as its employees, yes, it is indeed a pleasure to watch someone take on the machine and win.

beatpanda 11y ago
Where "winning" is the normalization of precarious labor where the employee assumes all risk and somehow makes even less money than they did in "the machine". Oh, but you got to the club a little faster. Baller, bro.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  What, a fair wage? Clearly that's un-American.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  I make a point of asking Uber and Lyft drivers how they like it. Lyft drivers universally love it. Uber drivers are less enthusiastic on the whole, but they have generally said it's better than working as a cab driver. I've since stopped using Uber since it's hard to feel comfortable about their business practices, but they're still better than the taxi monopolies and I'm happy to see them pursuing the fight and clearing the way for kindler, gentler services along the same lines. I am generally inclined to think that people should be free to make their own decisions about their lives. Whatever you may think about the risk/benefit tradeoff, it seems clear to me that drivers in Seattle who have the choice choose to drive for Uber, Lyft, or a private for-hire service rather than put up with the traditional cab dispatcher. I can make guesses at why that might be, overall, but I am certainly not going to tell them that they are making the wrong choice.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    To be honest, consider that it may take just one negative review to get fired ("independent contractors", hehe) from Uber (don't know how strict Lyft ratings are). I doubt the drivers that are not satisfied will risk answering you honestly, as you're a person in power to kick them out of their job by a single tap on your smartphone.
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      That's a reasonable point, and I certainly don't imagine that my informal survey results have any scientific validity. I do have what seems to be a higher-than-average sensitivity to body language, however, and I have never seen the signs of stress or guarding that I would expect if drivers were trying to give me the answers they thought I wanted. Perhaps Lyft's hiring process selects in some way for people who have the kind of social awareness and self-presentation skill necessary to fool me, but it seems simpler to believe that Lyft drivers are, by and large, genuinely happy about their jobs.
  - beatpanda 11y ago
    The individual choices of Uber drivers aren't what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the overall normalization of precarious labor that benefits the owners of capital and hurts the people doing the work. It starts to hurt workers everywhere if everyone gets used to accepting all of the risk of employment, not having access to workers comp or unemployment insurance, etc etc. And given the kind of benefits packages tech companies typically offer their workers, Uber's practices are especially hypocritical.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Taxi drivers were already precarious workers, with no benefits. Uber changed nothing in that regard.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Oh, bullshit, as if taxi drivers weren't already contractors without any benefits. Hell, they had to pay to work, by renting a medallion from millionaires like Evgeny Freidman, who can actually afford to buy them. Uber only takes a cut if you actually make money. Here's an article from way before Uber came around: "Driving a Taxi, Difficult in Best of Times, Gets Tougher" - http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
deegles 11y ago
Yes, once Uber takes the crown they will behave ethically, operate within the confines of the law and re-classify their drivers as employees with full benefits. They also won't even consider dropping them as soon as self-driving car technology matures. /s
- marssaxman 11y ago
  It depends on the state, but in many places taxi drivers are not employees either; they are independent sole proprietorships who rent the taxi medallion from its owner. Uber is not perfect but is an improvement over the status quo for both drivers and riders. Once it "takes the crown", we can work on the next step in improving transit.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > re-classify their drivers as employees with full benefits In what way is this an ethical concern? Many other businesses work with contractors. Considering that drivers compete with each other, work hours of their choice, and supply their own equipment, what exactly makes them employees?
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    Seems like a somebody thinks so: http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
ethanbond 11y ago
This seems like a non-sequitur. The business model was made illegal by people who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal. Uber isn't wrong to push the letter of the law, but no one should be surprised that it will take a little bit of time for the law to adapt to this. Uber's vicious and cavalier attitude towards law in general is really disgraceful. This seems like a classic "ends justify the means" type of scenario, and I'm generally skeptical of these.
- danhak 11y ago
  > The business model was made illegal by people who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
  - dnautics 11y ago
    Although I am a big proponent of spreading the word about Regulatory capture, it's not quite that simple. A lot of the regulations that exist for taxis really do make sense, given a few contexts: 1) you don't know who is coming to pick you up 2) the ability to contact your former driver in the event of a bad experience is almost nil 3) you have to trust the taximeter 4) taxis have to jockey for a visual hail 5) there is no guarantee that a dispatched taxi will actually arrive. while there are concerns (e.g. safety, insurance) that do warrant a strong rational basis for regulation that are in common between taxis and lyft/uber, etc - a lot of the regulations that are in place do not carry over and those shouldn't apply to the lyft/uber. To its credit, the state of california seems to be making an (if slow) rapprochement between the existing regulation set and a reasonable set... Don't know about other places.
- antihero 11y ago
  But people didn't vote people in because of their stance on taxis, apart from small vested interest groups. For most people this wasn't even an agenda they thought about, but because Uber exists, and they see an alternative to the rubbish taxi companies, it's coming to the spotlight.
threeseed 11y ago
The US is not the only country in the world. Not all countries have a corrupt, entrenched monopoly nor do all countries have the same antagonism towards taxi services. And yes it's great to see someone siphon billions of dollars away from government/taxpayers and into the hands of a select few. It's also great to see them do this by ignoring any and all laws they see fit to. What a shining example of corporate responsibility and ethics.

SilasX 11y ago

Yishan Wong explained it well in a Quora answer about the law being "lazily evaluated" and how the political realities can change by the time the law comes after a business in earnest: https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regulated-out-of-existence/answer/Yishan-Wong?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regula...

princeb 11y ago
sometimes I wish a brave soul will do the same with the financial industry (w.r.t. institutional regulation) but alas the law there is nowhere close to lazy eval.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Just as it's much easier to get traction behind an idea with a proof of concept, it's much easier to change the law when you've demonstrated an obviously better solution. A company should never act unethically. That does not make all laws worthy of respect. Just have a very detailed understanding of the consequences.

rquantz 11y ago

Fascinating to see HN's best brightest and their view of the rule of law. How is it good for democracy if a well-funded corporation can flout the law by its very existence? People make the excuse that taxi regulations are unjust. But it is still the law, and for Uber it didn't matter whether the law was unjust, only that it was in their way. These guys are not crusaders for justice, they are profit-seekers who decided the law didn't apply to them and went about their business until they amassed enough power that they could not be stopped.