I have many issues with Uber as a corporation - their treatment of customers, employees and drivers. But with case law, I have concerns for the precedent this sets.
Ruling drivers as employees risks removing scope for a ridesharing services entirely, and locks ad hoc transportation to the old inefficient taxi system.
With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.
I think the bigger issue is why Uber has so much leverage to control the pricing and terms of drivers in the first place, and why there aren’t more alternatives to force them to be competitive.
uber has never proved the non taxi model is actually self sustaining. They paid really high wages at the start for low fares by burning through investment capital with the promise they will corner the taxi market and repay investors with a monopoly.
At the rates and fares they’re collecting its actually not possible to maintain the kind of fleet they need. When investors and drivers stop volunteering their money and cars to support uber its not clear the whole thing will stand up on its own. Grocery/restaurant delivery is for sure a heavy ongoing loss in the industry.
With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.
I don’t see why having drivere be employees would prevent this. If you’re driving, you’re on the clock. If you’re not, you’re not.
Alternatively, have a true network of contractors, with an Uber style company just creating a marketplace to facilitate connections between individuals offering and accepting rides. The company won’t set prices or schedules or payouts; it will allow drivers and riders to bid on fares. The company simply takes a small percentage from each transaction, or has a membership fee.
I have many issues with Uber as a corporation - their treatment of customers, employees and drivers. But with case law, I have concerns for the precedent this sets.
Ruling drivers as employees risks removing scope for a ridesharing services entirely, and locks ad hoc transportation to the old inefficient taxi system.
With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.
I think the bigger issue is why Uber has so much leverage to control the pricing and terms of drivers in the first place, and why there aren’t more alternatives to force them to be competitive.
uber has never proved the non taxi model is actually self sustaining. They paid really high wages at the start for low fares by burning through investment capital with the promise they will corner the taxi market and repay investors with a monopoly.
At the rates and fares they’re collecting its actually not possible to maintain the kind of fleet they need. When investors and drivers stop volunteering their money and cars to support uber its not clear the whole thing will stand up on its own. Grocery/restaurant delivery is for sure a heavy ongoing loss in the industry.
I don’t see why having drivere be employees would prevent this. If you’re driving, you’re on the clock. If you’re not, you’re not.
Alternatively, have a true network of contractors, with an Uber style company just creating a marketplace to facilitate connections between individuals offering and accepting rides. The company won’t set prices or schedules or payouts; it will allow drivers and riders to bid on fares. The company simply takes a small percentage from each transaction, or has a membership fee.
That network of contractors is a pretty cool idea, I think that’s the kind of network I would like an exception carved out for.
The other commenter made a fair point that its commercial viability is questionable, but as the world changes I’d still want to leave to scope to try.