Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cthulhu_ | Hacker News Reader

The other side of the coin is that of exploitation - no Uber rides, no income. Sick? No income. Accident while driving for Uber? Your problem, you pay for everything.

If they're employees, they get a lot of rights and protections that maybe aren't common at all in the US. Companies like Uber (and e.g. construction companies, marketing agencies, etc) will push people to become self-employed so that the employer has no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever to the employee. This will allow them to out-compete the companies (like Black Cab in London) heavily, at the cost of the workers.

View on HN

If it's truly at the cost of the workers, why do the workers put up with it? If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead?

Or perhaps Uber are actually providing a useful source of work to drivers who otherwise wouldn't be working at all?

If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead?

It is not easy to go and work as a traditional taxi driver in London. There are various regulations on taxis and taxi drivers in the UK anyway, and in addition, in London taxi drivers are required to pass an infamously difficult test known as The Knowledge proving that they can navigate effectively around London streets.

One of the big objections to Uber and the like is that they attempt to bypass some of those regulations and that training, and the regulations and training are there for a reason. To the extent that this confers a competitive advantage to Uber drivers over black-cabbies, it's a rather unfair one.

If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage.

So, obviously those rules don't matter as much to customers as convenience, price and availability do.

If the rules "are there for a reason" then black cabs would be obviously superior and wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage.

In some ways, black cabs are obviously superior. To pick a few examples, their pricing is regulated by local authorities, they are required to be wheelchair accessible, and their drivers are required to have The Knowledge along with various other qualifications before being licensed.

To the extent that black cabs may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to Uber's standard (non-surge) pricing, that is in part because Uber's current financial model seems to be subsidising every journey using the vast amounts of funding they have accepted. That is not sustainable. It is also in part because of exactly the sort of issues we're talking about today, where they've been cutting their costs at the expense of their drivers in legally questionable ways, which again is hardly playing on a level field.

Having driven one of them you forgot:

* Rude

* Will demand payment in cash, and only when you threaten them with non-payment repeatedly will allow you to pay with credit cards, DESPITE agreeing to it beforehand.

* Unwilling to stop where the customer wants them to

* Don't get out of the car to put luggage in the trunk

I hate Uber's labour practices, but there are major issues with black cabs.

It's famously difficult to become a black cab driver in London. You need to know every road in the city to pass "The Knowledge" test. Well beside public safety health tests.

And I'm glad of it! There's little more frustrating in a taxi than finding out the driver's stupidly and witlessly following whatever Map application they have suction-cupped to their windscreen, rather than using actual knowledge to go smarter, quicker routes.

Especially when they start off the wrong way or take a wrong turn and their map app dutifully encourages them around some longer path.

It takes about 2 years to do the training to be a Black Cab driver in London:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7gp8KBP7ak

A lot of Europeans (including me) are of the opinion that a job without protection (minimum wage, sick pay, health insurance, unemployment insurance/benefits, cover for accidents) shouldn't exist. Someone should rather be unemployed and receive benefits while looking for employment or while retraining than being exploited by a company. Not saying that this is the case with all Uber drivers but there's a decent amount of people who work hours that would be illegal in any employment while earning just enough to survive. The reasons why people still accept these jobs are diverse but Uber's promises of good wages (>£10/hr) played a role getting many to drive. And once you have your car and license you need to drive to pay off loans.

Being self employed can have its benefits but Uber drivers enjoy very few of those.

I think a lot of Americans have a different view of how labor and markets should work. Especially on this forum, which is very much pro-laissez faire capitalism (I see a lot of Randian themes being repeated).

Labor can be exploited only when a corporation can sidestep the organized labor pool and tap into the pool of labor that demands no protections. If most Americans thought as you did, I don't think American corporations could get away with paying their employees such pitiful wages and benefits.

This is forgetting that most craftsmanship small shops or other individual profession are self-employed and don't have minimum wage, maximum hours, unemployment benefits, etc. Think about bakers, nurses (outside of clinics/hospital), etc. It is not clear why "taxi drivers" shouldn't be allowed for people to be self-employed and managed their time themselves.

Because truly self employed people can decide who they work for and how they structure their business. With Uber, you're very restricted in how you're set up (rules on cars) and who you work for (forced to accept jobs). Taxi drivers can be self employed and have been for a long time in most countries but Uber has more power over the drivers than is usual for self employed people.

I was addressing the part of your comment that mentioned "a job without protection (minimum wage, sick pay, health insurance, unemployment insurance/benefits, cover for accidents) shouldn't exist".

I don't think Europeans consistently adhere to that, since they allow small business proprietors and (legit) contractors to work for low effective wages. To the extent that such workers receive benefits, they're paid directly by the state rather than, "Hey client/customer, you need to stop exploiting that contractor/business; give them some health insurance!"

> If it's truly at the cost of the workers, why do the workers put up with it? If it's so easy to go and work for Black Cab in London, wouldn't they just do that instead?

To work as as a Black Cab in London you have to do The Knowledge - which can take several years to complete https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

Some starving to death might agree to work for me for just room and board.

It doesn't mean that I can target disadvantaged people for slavery. Uber needs to be held to proper standards.

How is this any different to how most minicab companies operate, where the drivers are also self-employed?

It is different, in the traditional government bureaucratic ways. It boils down to :

* several government sanctioned intermediaries get a cut (who, I'm sure, are entirely unrelated to the politicians running the city)

* direct tax is paid on the taxi cab licence to the government

No, this isn't accurate.

The majority of minicab companies operate as an agency.. which keeps the operating company below the VAT threshold. Uber reduces their liability in the same way.

Mini cab drivers have private hire licence (not a Hackney carriage licence, that a taxi which trawls the street looking for a fare)... Uber drivers have he same license as Minicab drivers.

A mini cab is usually ordered by phoning up the agency, and the driver picks up at your location... Uber you use an app, but the process is the same. Neither are allowed to be hailed from the road.

With minicabs, the car and fuel is often provided by the agency.. which makes it more of an employer than uber (where the car and fuel is provided by the self-employed contractor)!

I agree with these articles: https://www.ft.com/content/7ca2f852-b5b5-11e7-a398-73d59db9e... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/uber-says...

I think what most people expect to be compared is taxis (hailed from the road) vs Uber.

Uber is simply a better version of private hire, I don't think that's in dispute by anyone. But how does it compare against taxis seems to be what the discussion is about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com