Uber drivers striking for benefits? Isn't the whole point of Uber that it is a casual, part time thing?

The only worse business plan I've seen lately is for the silly motorized scooters life Bird and Lime and others.

umm...wut? wrote:

This could happen for a shift or two, but anyone who is making less than $0 on average over any period of time greater than a few days is going to figure out that it isn't worth it and stop. Especially when the "job" is one that allows you to work when and if you please.

A lot of people could go a long time without factoring in the cost of depreciation, extra maintenance, etc. They may be making money on a cash accounting basis, but losing money if all of the costs are actually accounted for.

people are bad at math wrote:

umm...wut? wrote:

This could happen for a shift or two, but anyone who is making less than $0 on average over any period of time greater than a few days is going to figure out that it isn't worth it and stop. Especially when the "job" is one that allows you to work when and if you please.

A lot of people could go a long time without factoring in the cost of depreciation, extra maintenance, etc. They may be making money on a cash accounting basis, but losing money if all of the costs are actually accounted for.

Exactly. That's the whole business model of uber. Depending on drivers who can't do the math. That's why I don't understand that step towards automated driving. That would mean that uber owns and maintains all these driverless cars. That would be quite a different business model.

Behonesthere wrote:

The whole idea of Uber is to run a taxi service but duck all regulation by not calling it a taxi service. It’s traditional “shirk all responsibility” capitalism.

This

Yet you started with an arbitrary percentage:

And don't say it wasn't arbitrary, because it obviously is since that number will vary from company to company to situation to economy, etc.

I keep hearing about how good this economy is. So, if Uber drivers do actually ALL strike, it should work since there isn’t a ready supply of strike breaking scabs.

Yepper wrote:

Behonesthere wrote:

The whole idea of Uber is to run a taxi service but duck all regulation by not calling it a taxi service. It’s traditional “shirk all responsibility” capitalism.

This

The differences between Uber and a taxi company are not semantic. They are real, and courts around the country have agreed. So Uber is certainly not shirking any legal responsibility.

As for ethical responsibility, Uber facilitates transactions between willing parties, at great financial cost to itself. I'm curious as to what ethical system that offends.

Gig schmig wrote:

The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?

Because everybody here has a STEM degree from an Ivy League and so should you, moron. I also run a 4:12 mile.

Seriously though, why do so many people on this forum lack empathy or even basic human decency?

So how'd the strike go, anyway? Anyone try to take an Uber yesterday?

when every uber comes up I think about this:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

best example yet showing that the wage gap doesn't exist.

not a finance guy, are you wrote:

Investors are not profiting. They are paying $90 billion to subsidize cheaper rides and higher wages in hopes of someday making a profit. Demanding they lose even more money than they currently are will only put them out of business sooner and then everybody loses.

One - the early investors are absolutely profiting by selling their shares for more than they put in.

Two - the new investors should profit or why would they invest? It's a risk, of course.

What you are saying is that they are making a bad investment.

People said that about the IPO buyers for Facebook and its value is 5 times what it was.

I am not saying that Uber is a good investment. Some experts don't see where the return will come from.

Maybe they are betting on charging higher fares and larger market share. Maybe self-driving cars will make the difference.

Maybe they will go out of business.

But right now they rely on happy and competent drivers. That's their product.

If they "drive" away their better employees by not taking care of them, their product quality will go down and business will suffer.

The drivers see all of this money coming in and are a little pissed right now.

X-Runner wrote:

The drivers see all of this money coming in and are a little pissed right now.

I wonder if they really are, though. I can't really get a handle on whether this discontentment is a majority opinion among Uber drivers, or whether it's a small minority making a lot of noise.

Behonesthere wrote:

The whole idea of Uber is to run a taxi service but duck all regulation by not calling it a taxi service. It’s traditional “shirk all responsibility” capitalism.

This. By not providing benefits or a livable wage these “part time taxis” keep rates down and eliminate their competition, actual taxi service.

If you end up with benefits and a livable wage then rates must go up, thus defeating the purpose of these companies to begin with.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Behonesthere wrote:

The whole idea of Uber is to run a taxi service but duck all regulation by not calling it a taxi service. It’s traditional “shirk all responsibility” capitalism.

This. By not providing benefits or a livable wage these “part time taxis” keep rates down and eliminate their competition, actual taxi service.

If you end up with benefits and a livable wage then rates must go up, thus defeating the purpose of these companies to begin with.

Alan

And then people will stop using Uber and all those people who complained for benefits will lose their jobs, thus defeating the purpose of the strike.

random3 wrote:

when every uber comes up I think about this:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

best example yet showing that the wage gap doesn't exist.

Jeez, why are runners so thick ?

It doesn't show the wage gap doesn't exist, it shows when you remove human bias from the situation it doesn't exist, which is the whole point of he wage gap (i.e it's based on human bias) oO.

why it doesn't work wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

This. By not providing benefits or a livable wage these “part time taxis” keep rates down and eliminate their competition, actual taxi service.

If you end up with benefits and a livable wage then rates must go up, thus defeating the purpose of these companies to begin with.

Alan

And then people will stop using Uber and all those people who complained for benefits will lose their jobs, thus defeating the purpose of the strike.

Uber drivers can find new jobs much easier than Uber executives can deal with the loss of the company.

I am looking at Alan's view and I agree and am skeptical of the end-around the regulations that taxi companies face.

The cool thing is the app and the transparency of pricing. That beats what taxi cabs had.

Gig schmig wrote:

The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?

I'm just going to assume this is a troll post.

X-Runner wrote:

I agree and am skeptical of the end-around the regulations that taxi companies face.

Can you explain what these regulations are and what purpose they serve? Thanks.

zohan wrote:

Yeah, I don't think the neighbors will find my Air Rock Quarry such a great innovated idea. I don't think the businesses that run actual rock quarries and follow the proper safety and regulations would find my big new idea all that refreshing.

Zoning laws exist for a reason. Safety regulations exist for a reason.

Straw man fallacy. No one thinks you should build rock quarries in residential neighborhoods. But almost everyone I talk to (mostly 'left') agrees that the zoning laws in Seattle are horrible for business and affordable housing supply. The codes were written like 100 years ago when the population was less than half of today's and the local government is too slow (or unwilling) to update them. This situation can be improved and it's not some slippery slope that will lead to your next-door neighbor drilling for rocks.