When Their Shifts End, Uber Drivers Set Up Camp in Parking Lots Across the U.S.
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I predict that rideshare-pedestrian deaths are going to skyrocket in 2017 as more drivers take desperate measures to try to get by.
In this instance, how would the rating work for drivers in an UberPool? Does each person's vote count for only 1/n, or is each one a full vote? If it's full votes for all riders in a single UberPool ride, all it probably takes are a couple of mediocre UberPool experiences and the driver is selected out of the driving pool.
When I have unsafe drivers I aggressively rate them 1 or 2s depending on what it was. I know that it's "mean" to the driver, but I'm being kind to future passengers, pedestrians, and everyone who shares the road.
Uber and Lyft say they do this, but I've personally seen drivers with lower ratings kicking around. Anyone know what's up with that?
It's like there's some sort of un- (or under-) stated thing amongst the Uber drivers, such that fare turnover beats traffic safety.
Also I am very mindful that any report or flagging by riders concerning safety can result in removal from the platform. Other drivers might go balls out but they won't be on the platform for long.
There are some downsides for the rider. Be in the car within 105 seconds of when the driver taps arrive or pay $5. You can't ask the driver to divert or stop at the liquor store. And I've heard women say they won't take Line (to their home/work at least) because if there's a creepy guy in the car that gets dropped off after them, the guy knows where they live/work/hang out.
And Lyft's incentives are geared in a way where they give a lot, even up to where it looks to me like a loss on paper, to any driver who is dedicated and is bringing something good to the table.
The bottom line is, driver compensation sucks because people aren't willing to pay what the service is actually worth. They pay $10-$30 a day to Rideshare, and ignore the fact that a new car TCO is 2-3x that. And they get to spend their time doing something else instead of driving. Some people work, some socialize with their friends, some seek entertainment from their devices. And then there are those who avoid the $10,000 DUI.
Why should a new car be valued by market principles but rides not?
To increase price, you must decrease supply.
I'm not saying the value won't change in some years when the VC money dries up and the market shifts. Of course it will. To think otherwise would make me like the taxi medallion owners complaining about their mistaken investments.
Another way to look at it is that buying a car is a bad investment, because it's tough to recover the cost of ownership. Perhaps people buy them for non-business purposes and are driving the price up.
Uber's use of technology has certainly delivered a better experience per dollar spent, but it still runs into these effects.
[1] cab companies don't pay drivers directly, but there's an "implicit driver cost" that underlies how much they're able to rent the cabs for relative to the revenue drivers pull in
I've used uber in SF, NY, and London. It's painfully clear they are a taxi service going from 1 "customer" to another.
I'm sure there are ppl that legit share their ride to work, but I'd love to see the numbers of ride shares vs serial taxi-like behavior
Maybe in California. Up here in Canada, "the robots" are still paralyzed by the snowy roads that cover the huge majority of our roadways in the winter. I suspect that this is also true in large parts of Europe.
Living in the Silicon Valley, where the days are always above 50 and mostly sunny, really skews your expectations of what the rest of the country faces for weather.
Even without regulation, there must be a huge legal risk that Uber's lack of a serious fatigue management system will be found to be negligent. The ways this goes wrong in the trucking industry are very well known.
Unless, of course, it was actually Uber doing it.. then it would suddenly be made legal in 90% of the places it operated and have a blind eye turned to it in the other 10%. I saw a ton of gypsy cab services get shut down in my city before Uber came along.
Are you referring to the recent movie "I.T." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.T._(film) where Pierce Brosnan plays the role of a airline company CEO who roles out an app that does for planes what Uber does for cars? He gets wrongfully arrested in the movie, but not for his "Uber for planes", but for something else. The roles in that film didn't square with reality. Brosnan portrayed an ethical family man and company director ignorant about IT, whereas in real life he'd be fiddling his company books, cheating on his wife, and using his business's IT infrastructure to illegally monitor his employees. The antagonist could talk to girls and run a sophisticated surveillance system, but couldn't shrug off a snub by Brosnan's character. None of it was believable. I wouldn't use anything in that film as a reference to real life.
I think if you give people the option to work 70+ hour weeks to make a little extra money, there's always going to be a minority of people that will
Perhaps society owes these people more, but not Uber.
Or if you're talking about the legal migrant farm workers, then what society owes them is the deportation of the illegals, so that they no longer have to compete on price with an unlimited number of people who shouldn't be there.
It's no surprise that unenforced immigration laws plus an open border to a third-world country drives down unskilled labour prices.
Heck, once we get rid of the illegals we may find that Uber prices go up too. The US doesn't really have an oversupply of unskilled labour.
Why? Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place).
Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention by the right. The right way to solve this is now by complaining about what Uber "owes" its drivers but in legislation. But we don't want to legislate businesses, we want to stay "nimble" and "flexible", so this is what we get as a result. Don't complain about lying in the bed we've made.
Because karma is bitch, and history bites back.
And if Uber doesn't step up to the plate, and start doing what's not only right for its drivers, but (by any common-sense analysis) also right for its own balance sheets in the long term (as opposed to what appears to be right in the short-term for its megalomaniacal expansion plans)-- that is, make driving a sustainable profession to be in, and not just a "well as long as times aren't so great, let's see how long we can get away with screwing these people" (as appears to be their current motto) profession -- then soon enough, it's going to bite back on them -- hard.
Which is an okay decision for them to make. But it does feel like they're taking some nanny-responsibilty for people who ought to be able to make their own financial decision? And they would absolutely be disqualifying some responsible people who could have made it work.
Perhaps legislation will catch up here, forcing max hours and making Uber's car leasing model unsustainable. By the time it does however, the cars may be self driving in many cities anyway.
The solution seems like a combinations of regulation, increased enforcement, and heavy penalties.
I'd say they may owe it to themselves. Press like this demoralizes employees, dissuades potential customers and hints at the presence of political capital for the taking. Whether those costs and risks are worth it is a business decision, of course, but public perception isn't a non-issue.
Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be.
The right way to solve this for people to stop using Uber, stop expecting the ultra low rates, just stop
The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral, and stop using the products and services of corporations that have policies they disagree with.
I love it when i hear people bitch about how terrible uber treats its drivers but continue to use them as their primary mode of transportation. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
As as example, I dislike Walmart, I have not stepped foot in a Walmart store in more than a decade.
If more people would vote with their wallet companies would change their policies, instead they look to government to use violence for force companies to change because anything else would inconvenience them.
it is the lazy way out.
That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber.
> The right way to solve this is not via legislation
What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
> The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral
Why is millions of individuals all making a moral choice more likely than one company doing it? How often does this work? The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, such as situations like this one, we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
Morality is a human construct, Corporations are not people as such can not have Morality.
People make moral choices.
>>What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
There is soo much wrong here.
First off, legislation often makes situation worse, and rarely improves things. After all Uber is a direct reaction to regulation of Taxi's, People wanted a less regulation more convenient service for their transportation needs, Regulation of Uber will just result in something else as people attempt to get out from under the government thumb.
Further the call for regulation is a itself a knee jerk emotional reaction to a perceived injustice.
Finally I do not like the "democratic way". I believe in individuality, not collectivism, I do not believe 51% of the population gets to dictate what the other 49% do or cant do.
>The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver,
I do not believe it is failing to deliver, clearly the people the drive for Uber believe driving for Uber is better than the other options they have, better than other jobs that are open to them. Simple because you do not like their choice or because you perceive it as "unfair" does not mean the people are not acting in their own interests. Shitty choices are still choices
Where laws and regulation should come into play is for Fraud, false advertisement, and contract violations. All of which Uber has been accused of and it should be investigated.
I also believe we should have strong Truth in Advertising laws to prevent companies like Uber from inflating income numbers, or getting people to sign terrible leasing programs like the ones Uber has. This would be good use of government regulation
Requiring all kind of Employment regulations and other types of regulation people call for is not.
>we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
We should not, nor is it effect
Law and regulations should only be there to prevent direct physical harm, theft and fraud. Nothing else. They should not protect people from their own stupidity, they should not attempt to make the world subjectivity "fair" which is impossible as every person has a different definition of what is "fair"
The only proper role of government is to ensure people are honestly transacting with each free from coercive threats of violence, or actual violence between persons.
Beyond that any action by government ceases to be defensive in nature and becomes Aggressive and is IMO unethical
Theory is a useful servant but a bad master, liable to produce orthodox defenders of every variety of the faith.
- Harry Guntrip (attributed)
Government should be based on principles...
No, it is accepting that a social group is somehow free of all moral and ethical obligations by virtue of calling itself a "business" that is a silly modern invention.
Humans have are obligated to be morally upstanding. That obligation does not evaporate when we get together in a group, or when we file a business license to make that group "official".
History is pretty clear on this point: Without protection, workers are at too great a disadvantage when negotiating with large businesses. Look at working conditions before unions became powerful and laws and regulations were passed - they were brutal and wrong.
Yeah, summed up libertarian beliefs and their logical conclusion in a nutshell.
It's the bad dreams that always get you.
You obviously didn't read the whole article (although the author clearly tried to bury this at the end) - quote from the same driver:
“I signed up for this because I am my boss. I kind of own the business. I have the freedom and that’s a beautiful thing,”
and
“These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
I was doing work for <large, billion dollar tech company everyone knows> as an hourly contractor. I left to do some "sharing economy" stuff that, although is not the same as doing rideshares for Uber, it's something that's very, very similar. It involves driving. The changes that it brought were:
- Not having to do work that, at the end of the day, is the opposite of fulfilling
- Not having to answer for dumb, avoidable mistakes when the responsibility inevitably diffuses throughout the whole team
- Not having to deal with the workplace sociopaths who cause them
- Not being subjected to the whims of a mercurial, micromanaging supervisor
- Not having the stress of all these things creep into my life outside work
The downside to leaving and opting for what I'm doing now is basically this: big pay cut. I'm not a SV rockstar and have no nest egg, but this is paying for groceries and rent for the time being. I can say unequivocally that in regards to all these factors that people pretend to care about, I'm far more well off than I would have been at my former workplace, and yet if I had stayed, no one would have batted an eye and feigned to sympathize with the plight that resulted from those circumstances, because it was a "real" job.
I honestly could not give a relatable damn about the "I have my own schedule" aspects. I'm very big on planning, and the truth is that I'm able to make plans that stick even better than when I was at <the company>. By far the most important part is that when I'm not driving, I'm able to do things in my offtime that keep me sharp.
Before leaving, the idea that I could, say, build up my skills in my time off until something better comes along, was totally out of the question. I'd compare trying to stave off the braindamage of dealing with daily workplace nonsense to be similar to trying to maintain a healthy physique so that you're fit enough to enjoy your daily jog, all while your paycheck somehow relies on subjecting your body to junk food, soda, and cigarettes.
Now, I've got side projects and interesting avenues of research to explore.
The idea that my driver is overnighting in his/her car is not appealing to me as a rider. Does Uber not care about their image?
Next time I Uber/Lyft (rare, usually just airport shuttle) I'm going to ask about that.
It would be very easy to regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey. However, that wouldn't improve the conditions that those in the economic class of drivers are subject to, it would just make them less visible. Fixing the Uber problem without providing any alternative employment options is a superficial placebo to make the wealthy feel more comfortable, because it doesn't correct any of the underlying economic problems. Those drivers will still exist, they'll just be pushed into agriculture, sweatshops, and dingy housing projects; hidden places, where nobody else has to look at them again.
There's a very good article called The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] which states that "when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it", and "if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster." This seems to be the case with Uber, where they make money from a social and economic problem where there's an oversupply of unskilled labour, and thus get blamed for the working conditions that were already a reality for so many hidden and unnoticed people, even if they incrementally improve those conditions.
This is not a call to give Uber free rein, but rather to consider drivers as more or less rational human beings capable of making their own choices, and to consider driver wellbeing in that light.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160806191858/https://blog.jaibo...
1. increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail
2. increase the cost of a fare, leading to fewer rides and forcing drivers to find other employment
3. increase the cost of a fare, but have little impact on rider numbers because fares were already too low, making everyone happy
If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?
EDIT: should probably add that I support a UBI to solve this. I'm not suggesting that sleeping in your car after a 14 hour shift is good, or right.
Subsidize with investor money to try to drive competitors out of business?
I mean, I understand that uber started because the taxi market was protectionist. But on the other hand, do taxi drivers have better pay and a better union? Often, yes. There may be a middle ground here.
(* note that this argument applies to a lot of the gig-economy jobs out there, including lyft, doordash, and so on, not just Uber)
Is that a livable wage? I'm not sure, but it's higher than minimum wage. Does it make Uber sustainable? I'm not sure, but it arguably makes it more sustainable than Walmart.
Why does everything need to pay a living wage? Uber driving is so easy that there must be a sizeable population of people that are willing to do it for less than a 'living wage' (retirees, students, housewives who want to get out of the house once, unemployed people between jobhunting).
I do it myself a few times a week just because I like driving, even though it pays literally 8x less than my day job.
I taught fitness classes a few times a week for years part time because I enjoyed it. It definitely wasn't for the money.
Or they will need to adjust and find another way, like all businesses do. Or they will fail and someone else will find a better way. That's what the free market is about.
It's an old trope that if you increase costs on a business, it's passed along to customers or someone else. That's not how economics works; businesses have many options, they aren't locked into their way of doing things (again, that 'free market').
One question I always have is, why should I care if Uber succeeds or fails? They openly disdain caring about anyone else, including their drivers and the laws of the communities where they operate. I care about their workers, but what does Uber itself matter to me?
If you really came through with the extra pay I think they still sleep in their cars and bank the difference.
Why? Behavioral economics shows us that many, perhaps most people have huge cognitive biases and make irrational choices. If this wasn't so then scamming people wouldn't be as profitable as it historically has been. To quote PT Barnum 'there's a sucker born every minute'; and while I don't feel like digging up statistics right now, there's tons of evidence that a significant proportion of the population is clueless.
It's a bit of a strawman to use the hyperbole; plenty of industries are regulated, not regulated "the hell out of", and very profitable too. Also, I disagree with the second statement; labor regulations have a long history of helping workers and still do. They enjoy a 40 hour workweek, overtime, safe working conditions, protection for collective bargaining and much more.
It's the places where these things are absent, such as Uber and their non-employees, where people suffer more. Of course, anything can be taken too far, but unless workers have real power and leverage, they will be taken advantage of.
It may sound like economics, but it's not coincidence that everything the right wing promote strengthens business and/or weakens labor. The economic rationalizations are post-hoc talking points.
Notably, the profiled drivers themselves weren't demanding changes: that was being done by a paid lobbyist from a group that doesn't seem to be affiliated with them.
Equally notably, while Uber may be a little exploitative, it's nothing compared to 25 hours a week rostered at random times throughout the week for a hair short of the absolute minimum wage. Taking down Uber while leaving far worse alternatives intact removes an escape hatch for the most exploited workers of all.
These are the words used to describe a hypothetical situation of your own creation. It seems hard to escape the term "hyperbole".
I have no doubt that heavy-handed regulation could bring such a change. Commenters here and on other submissions seem to complain that such regulation doesn't exist, in particular that Uber doesn't employ full time workers.
Maybe I'm missing something. Help me understand what the hyperbolic part is.
Also, each post seems to contain more hyperbolic phrases. I think they are obvious enough that I'm not getting into the business of listing them.
“This job is not for everyone. Don’t get it twisted,” he said. “These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
Government drones could really learn a thing or two from that guy.
"But the homeless might sleep in them". Better there than on the streets, no?
They are mainly found in Japan and I've seen a few in China and Singapore.
They range from bad to almost wellness/SPA centers but usually are at least decent, convenient and good value for money.
I'm very interested in these kinds of stats. I'd imagine this is like any other distribution - long, long tailed; with lots of drivers who have driven once, twice, or what have you. Give me the stats on heavy drivers. What fraction of drivers work > 40 hours a week? What fraction of miles driven are driven by heavy drivers? What fraction of <10 hour a week drivers have other jobs? How many hours a week does an Uber driver without another job drive on average?
The company is giving us just the slice that looks good. I'm sure if you started diving into these questions, it wouldn't be pretty.
Even if 90% of Uber drivers drive <10 hr a week, its quite possible that more than 90% of the total ride time is be drivers who drive ~24 hrs a day.
In India, most Uber drivers I spoke to had a common thread. They buy new car, slog day and night to pay off the monthly payments, which means sleep for 3-4 hrs, work for 12 - 14 hrs.
Sleeping they do, wherever they'd find a safe place to park the car, and sign out of the Uber app. Basically no life of their own, until they pay off the car.
For many, lured by Uber's scheme of 'leasing to buy' cars scheme, once they have had the car for a month, its difficult to get out of that scheme because of loss aversion, and hope of independence after slogging for 3 to 4 years.
As far as I can see, simply that the same company helps them get the loan is the same one that pays them to drive. And also that they probably buy new cars and are upside down on the loan as soon as they drive off the lot.
But, isn't that like asking 'whats wrong in giving subprime loans?'
The way I see it, at least for Uber drivers in US getting such loans from Santander+Uber, its a raw deal.
In 4-6 years if they pay off the car as earnings continue to slide, they'll be holding onto a car which has 200K+ to 400K+ miles on it and worth not much. And in 4 years there's a very very good possibility that short haul rides could be fully autonomous.
Certainly to the point where I don't want to forbid them making that contract if they see fit. And the fact that Uber profits as well doesn't change the driver's rights in dealing with them. If the driver got a separate loan from the bank we wouldn't be having this discussion. Smart or not, it's their right.
The issue is all in the one company having too much control - like miners in a company town being under the thumb of a landlord and boss who were the same and shared information about the employee. That does bother me and I might want to pass a law to forbid that, to ensure there's a wall between those roles.
Now it's also adults in the prime of their earning years and the bed is now gone, the baron robbers of Silicon Valley took the last perk of the working man.
I wonder how this age will be remembered in a couple of centuries.
So where does it stay during those 6-8 hours? Well why not out in the streets in residential areas where it's as close as possible to people who would likely be commuting early in the morning. The streets would be fairly empty and it wouldn't be an issue because self driving cars would easily maneuver themselves.
This would be a scenario where all cars are owned by some organization (e.g. uber, the government, etc.) and then rented per trip by users. The result is cost savings for everyone involved.
Hopefully there won't be many fatigue related accidents. But no worries for Uber, the drivers aren't employees!
However, all the financial news I read about is how much money uber is losing.
My question is, where does it go? Insurance? Legal municipal wrangling? Embezzlement?
Also, looks like a startup opportunity for providing Uber drivers a safe place to spend the night (self storage style).
I guess the customer's win for as long as the VCs want to pour money into it. It's hard for me to believe that's a winning strategy... even if you outlast the competition, eventually you have to start making money and as soon as you raise prices again, competition can start back up.
I'm probably underestimating network effects.
I know it's tempting to see it that way, especially since uber is as large as it is, but the winning strategy is also to survive as the dominant player until self-driving cars are commonplace.
Then you replace the drivers with cars, and thanks to your network you have a huge first mover advantage in the driverless taxi industry. It's during the initial period of this stage that you would see the most profits, and then as more companies enter the market you would begin to have to compete on price and quality.
Maybe an app or something could make regulation more effective somehow.