Uber driver says he's really an Uber employee, wants to be paid at least the state minimum wage and overtime

I mean, I want this world where taxi drivers are professionals who obey traffic laws, are careful drivers, don't talk or text while driving, and aren't constantly trying to scam their customers.

But in reality? Aha hahaha.

Someone who owns a medallion. Maybe more than one?

Making drivers employees would be a significant step towards creating an actual sustainable business model.

If they're losing billions per quarter, how do you expect them to be profitable with the added expense of employees, using the same business model?

I'm not defending Uber, just asking. Honestly, I have no idea how one makes any money as an Uber driver, especially with Uber taking bigger and bigger pieces out of a fare.

Losses for a startup, are not surprising at all. Particularly one with the things a company has to deal with in real physical space -- battling outdated regulations municipality by municipality, having on the ground marketing operations in each one, never mind deep-pocketed competitors on the international stage (where the bulk of its recent losses were outside of their most recent quarter when employee stock compensation kicked in which was a one-time event)

Exploitative cancer? Last I checked Uber drivers made more and had far less burden than cab drivers in the medallion system. Technology also keeps the cars moving as opposed to sitting around freeing up more curb space for parking or public transit or bike lanes.

That the MBTA has to compete is not a bad thing, it is not Uber's fault that MBTA funding has challenges and it is hardly Uber to blame for the MBTA being under-invested or maintained for the past 20-30 years. MBTA has been under-priced for years relative to comparable transit systems in the US. Alternatively, if fare price doesn't matter and its all due to big dig debt and lack of state funding, then you can't argue both ways that ridership is harming it.

Additionally, part of the MBTA's biggest problem are its labor costs. 1/3 MBTA employees make over 100k thanks to all kinds of overtime abuse. Maybe you support unions, but at the end of the day does that seem correct? A few years ago we were getting news that the avg compensation for a bus driver was around $89k, all forces working against the overall budget and riders/taxpayers who don't get anyone advocating them on comments sections.

There are downsides to contractor models, but for what are effectively delivery people I can't think of a more appropriate one. The whole job is hugely enabled by people doing part time work, and it works out extremely well. Forcing a full time model onto the likes of Lyft and Uber to me makes no sense, even if a segment chooses to earn a living that way. I am pretty sure the majority of drivers are part-time and it would seem the silent majority is happy with the arrangement, never mind how well it works out for the riders. It's a stink in the likes of California where unions are very powerful, and see it as a front line in finding new members in an age of overall decline, but that doesn't make it inherently correct. A new layer of employee overhead is not going to make Uber sustainable faster (which, btw they are generally profitable in most large US metros, and losses tend to be in more developing markets)

FYI Uber's app even will route you via public transit, yes they have large goals overall but the future of transit should be more dynamic routing of buses and cars enabled by technology, not less. In the long run Uber/Lyft enable fewer people to own cars right off the bat, but they are not just cars and are getting involved with things like scooters and e-bikes too.

The solution to too many cars on the road are congestion pricing and tolls. The gas tax is already weakening because of the rise of electronic cars (which is an outcome we want) and its time to move toward new funding. I think ride-sharing should pay a lower toll than traditional passenger cars because they're moving far more people all day which is good overall for transit as opposed to one car driving into the city and parking somewhere all day, but there are policy solutions to this.

It is dumb to me to make this an "us vs. them" debate. The city should be enabling people to get from A to B at the lowest cost and highest convenience possible. Whether that is the MBTA for some, Uber for others, or a combination of both like I imagine most riders do (certainly how I do things, as well as use Blue Bikes -- BTW costs $99/year and certainly is taking people off the MBTA too so do you hate those?)

We're entering a golden age of mobility, and ride sharing is part of it (as are the other bus companies that are popping up). Just because the MBTA had an easy transit monopoly in the past doesn't entitle it to one going forward and should be forced to compete on the merits of itself.

Something every knee-jerk supporter of "full employee status" should read related to what is happening in California right now: https://stratechery.com/2019/ab-5-uber-and-the-gig-economy-the-abc-test-...

As it is, AB 5 supporters seem rather oblivious to the fact there will be knock-on effects to the legislation, should it survive both court and ballot challenges. Consider this tweet: https://twitter.com/cfarivar/status/1171859862130548736

Technically, this is true: AB 5 says nothing about shifts, geographic fences, or exclusivity. What AB 5 proponents argue is that the Dynamex test should be applied to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc. That’s the thing, though: if Uber cannot satisfy Test B, and thus must recognize drivers as employees, then it might as well give up on Tests A and C as well and actually treat drivers like employees, including:

* Telling drivers when and when not to work, and where
* Removing bonuses that incentivize working more
* Forbidding drivers from working for competing services
* Requiring drivers to take any ride offered to them, no matter the destination
* Require drivers to wear uniforms, or decorate their car in a particular way — perhaps a comeback for Lyft mustaches?

Indeed, the point about exclusivity in particular should give serious pause to those convinced that Uber’s argument that they are a platform is purely a self-serving one: Uber’s greatest challenge with regards to profitability is Lyft, and yet Uber has never seriously considered hiring drivers and forbidding them from working for Lyft as a condition of their employment. That strongly suggests that Uber really does believe its most important role is finding the market-clearing price for transportation, and that the cost of locking out Lyft would be a market that shrunk because either the cost would be too high or the liquidity of drivers too low.

That noted, Uber unilaterally hiring drivers is very different than both Uber and Lyft being forced to hire drivers at the same time; I can very much see an outcome where the combination of Uber’s superior scale within California and Uber’s lower exposure to California overall (6% of revenue versus 20% for Lyft) actually does allow Uber to squeeze Lyft, resulting in a monopoly that will employ a sufficient number of drivers to give relatively expensive and relatively poor-performing service to riders. You know, kind of like taxis.

If you think this thinking doesn't come with what might be significant downsides for the bulk of drivers, you aren't thinking far ahead enough.

If salaries were that low, no one would be driving for Uber or Lyft.

Correct?

Uber has one thing, and it's been duplicated by several competitors. Other than that, they own nothing. Not a single vehicle.

Honestly, it's baffling to me that they keep losing money. The Somalian immigrant whipping folks around pays for the brake pads, the San Fran bros just have to sit and rewrite code.

The ultimate goal is to get to a point where Uber owns its own self driving car fleet... if they can kill off the competition and convince people to give up their cars they would then have a strong hold on transportation.

Amazon is in the same long game.

Consider the trolley situation back in the day when GE offered communities great incentives to switch over to their diesel powered buses and rip up their trolley cables. Eliminate the competition at whatever the cost and then sit back and reep the rewards for decades.

Blame the crooked politicians