"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law"
Riiiiight.
Riiiiight.
I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear.
We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for.
> We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit.
The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified.
What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.
There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.
I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company.
Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion).
Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...
>by dodging taxes
Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..
>for their disguised employees.
Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning.
It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?
No. WE as people should hesitate to put laws in place. Every law and regulation has a intrinsic cost (to implement, follow and enforce) that takes away from economic growth and opportunity ... and when all is said and done, government laws do not create prosperity. Economic prosperity only comes from the market.
Laws and regulations are necessary but WE should be judicious with what WE choose to regulate.
>We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
This is a very naive view of laws and regulations. If it was so easy to do things with policy, the most corrupt nations could simply pass laws to make corruption illegal and be done with it. Poor nations could simply legislate economic prosperity!! Why doesn't that work?
He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few and/or corporations explicitly to the benefit of society on a number of non-monetary axes like environment, workers wellbeing, etc.
This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
Not a strawman, just a qualification. Their statement was ambiguous and could be compatible with what I argued.
>He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few
I don't disagree with that. Every law and regulation reduces economic opportunity and increases costs, but that's not an argument to not have any laws and regulations. It's an argument to be careful and measured when you do and understand that there is a cost to those policies even if they are necessary for societal well-being. That was my argument (or qualification) in response to OP, who was suggesting we should liberally apply laws and regulations. That I certainly disagreed with.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for anarcho-capitalist economy. I think a mixed economy with a free market foundation, reasonable regulations and taxation and reasonable welfare policies is the best we can expect. One of the things I'm really worried about from the modern left is that there is little to no acknowledgement of the necessity of having an market-based economy.
>This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
Full agreement.
"I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"
Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective.
And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated.
There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do.
I think talking about the challenges have merit.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/small-business/of...
But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?
There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.
It's important to remember that companies will always take the maximum they can get away with for the least compensation.
In the current situation that is asserting some control over the drivers to disincentivize them declining jobs but fairly little else because to exert more control would invalidate their claim their drivers are independent contractors. This is beneficial to Uber as they don't need to pay payroll taxes and provide health benefits etc that are tied to employment in US. i.e the overall cost to Uber per km driven is probably lowest this way.
The moment their drivers become employees there is no benefit to them not exerting all the control they can under an employment agreement. For instance there will no longer need to be a system for surge pricing because there won't be a need for surge compensation for drivers to increase supply because now the drivers are employees you can schedule shifts to ensure demand is met with sufficient supply.
Will it lead to a large portion of Uber drivers no longer being able to drive for Uber? Most likely. Will the drivers that remain be better off? Most likely as they were probably already full-time but not receiving benefits. Will ride prices go up? Most likely. Would this be better overall? Maybe, it's not as clear cut as a lot of people are making it out to be.
I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more.
Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber.
In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen.
I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.