7 ms·

Same as patents. You don't get to just ignore reams of existing regulation because you tack 'but with a computer' on a business model. Uber is only succeeding o

by jarcane 11y ago

Same as patents. You don't get to just ignore reams of existing regulation because you tack 'but with a computer' on a business model. Uber is only succeeding on the basis of having escaped notice for long enough that they could build coffers to bully their way into markets. The public is more aware now than it was then. SV/StartupLand needs to get over this idea that they can magically just make the world do what it wants and pretend things like legislation and human rights don't exist when they get in the way of their business model. You've got to work hard in the system like everybody else.

richardw 11y ago
That's my default view, but then I get surprised by both Uber and airbnb. StartupLand is one place where these limits are tested and you and I aren't the final arbiters of when or where they'll be overcome. (Btw, did not downvote)
pbreit 11y ago
This is a dumb sentiment and the article is actually one of the few that ignores the bogus culprit of employee classification in Homejoy's demise. It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money. The AirBnB situation is actually grayer since zoning does make sense (who wants a revolving door of random tourists in their apartment building or even residential neighborhood?). Uber and AirBnB are succeeding because they are delighting customers in a rather visceral way.
- onion2k 11y ago
  It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money No one is suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to drive for money, nor that Uber shouldn't be allowed to run their service, but simply that if Uber drivers are doing the work of employees they should get the benefits of being employees. The only real difference that would make is that Uber would be a little more expensive to use. It'd still be cheaper that a taxi. I think that's quite reasonable if it means Uber drivers have a happier, more stable life.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    A survey of the drivers found that 70%+ didn't want to be employees. But no, you should decide for them right?
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Any reason for why 70% said they didn't want to be employees?
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        I apologise, it was 87%. http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731784422/Lawyer-Uber-Drivers-Dont-Want-to-Be-Employees?slreturn=20150701073557 http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731784422/Lawyer-Uber-Driv...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yeah. And maybe we should make taxi drivers employees too, since currently they are (for the most part) actually contractors with no benefits.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    Oh, the employee thing. First, I think the contractor classification is totally appropriate for Uber drivers. But if you really want to classify them as employees, I wouldn't be surprised if Uber makes even more money paying min wage and keeping the surge.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  There is also the slight problems of inadequate insurance and tax evasion. The reason the taxi industry was originally regulated was the competition between drivers and taxi firms was literally cut-throat. While it might be good for consumers in the short run it won't be so good when we end up in a race to the bottom on the back of extreme competition.
dylanjermiah 11y ago
Legislation has nothing to do with 'human rights'. Especially in the transportation space. Regulation only existed, to the extent that it did, because the taxi cartel bought politicians and than they outlawed competition. The rhetoric of consumer safety, 'fairness', congestion etc. is just that, rhetoric.
- regeland 11y ago
  Absolutely. The taxi cab industry is example number one for regulatory capture. The foolish talk about "employee rights" for Uber drivers makes no sense. The market will determine the rate for labor of any types, Uber drivers included. All legislation around "employee rights" will do is take them away. Why is it necessary for the government to make illegal a voluntary exchange between Uber and drivers at any wage and any labor agreement? Either can walk away at any time. If Uber wasn't providing these drivers a service, they wouldn't sign up.
brc 11y ago
Human rights? Like the right to a free and fair trial? The right to free speech? I think the hyperbole might have dulled the comment a bit.

by jarcane 11y ago

richardw 11y ago

That's my default view, but then I get surprised by both Uber and airbnb. StartupLand is one place where these limits are tested and you and I aren't the final arbiters of when or where they'll be overcome. (Btw, did not downvote)

pbreit 11y ago

This is a dumb sentiment and the article is actually one of the few that ignores the bogus culprit of employee classification in Homejoy's demise. It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money. The AirBnB situation is actually grayer since zoning does make sense (who wants a revolving door of random tourists in their apartment building or even residential neighborhood?). Uber and AirBnB are succeeding because they are delighting customers in a rather visceral way.

onion2k 11y ago
It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money No one is suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to drive for money, nor that Uber shouldn't be allowed to run their service, but simply that if Uber drivers are doing the work of employees they should get the benefits of being employees. The only real difference that would make is that Uber would be a little more expensive to use. It'd still be cheaper that a taxi. I think that's quite reasonable if it means Uber drivers have a happier, more stable life.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  A survey of the drivers found that 70%+ didn't want to be employees. But no, you should decide for them right?
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Any reason for why 70% said they didn't want to be employees?
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      I apologise, it was 87%. http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731784422/Lawyer-Uber-Drivers-Dont-Want-to-Be-Employees?slreturn=20150701073557 http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731784422/Lawyer-Uber-Driv...
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yeah. And maybe we should make taxi drivers employees too, since currently they are (for the most part) actually contractors with no benefits.
- pbreit 11y ago
  Oh, the employee thing. First, I think the contractor classification is totally appropriate for Uber drivers. But if you really want to classify them as employees, I wouldn't be surprised if Uber makes even more money paying min wage and keeping the surge.
danieltillett 11y ago
There is also the slight problems of inadequate insurance and tax evasion. The reason the taxi industry was originally regulated was the competition between drivers and taxi firms was literally cut-throat. While it might be good for consumers in the short run it won't be so good when we end up in a race to the bottom on the back of extreme competition.

dylanjermiah 11y ago

Legislation has nothing to do with 'human rights'. Especially in the transportation space. Regulation only existed, to the extent that it did, because the taxi cartel bought politicians and than they outlawed competition. The rhetoric of consumer safety, 'fairness', congestion etc. is just that, rhetoric.

regeland 11y ago
Absolutely. The taxi cab industry is example number one for regulatory capture. The foolish talk about "employee rights" for Uber drivers makes no sense. The market will determine the rate for labor of any types, Uber drivers included. All legislation around "employee rights" will do is take them away. Why is it necessary for the government to make illegal a voluntary exchange between Uber and drivers at any wage and any labor agreement? Either can walk away at any time. If Uber wasn't providing these drivers a service, they wouldn't sign up.

brc 11y ago

Human rights? Like the right to a free and fair trial? The right to free speech? I think the hyperbole might have dulled the comment a bit.