I thought you were going to go in the opposite direction with that comment, in that Uber says that they're all sweetness and light and awesome for the drivers, yet the actual reports of treatment by the drivers suggest more that they're being screwed.
Exactly this. That's what I learned from Uber (and in some ways, AirBnB too) - from my initial excitement to the eventual realization that this is just investors and management making money on breaking laws and damaging the structure society. Disruption, they say.
You do realise the law making process is basically corrupted? It's called regulatory capture.
Most of the taxi laws are there to create scarcity, not protect the consumer.
Even with these laws, there are tons and tons abuses by legal taxi companies, but you don't hear about them.
The only real way to protect the consumers, is to allow the consumer to choose to use a service or not. If they want your custom, they better behave and sort there stuff out. It's the ultimate regulation. Government regulation forces you to use a particular service because you don't have much choice.
Creating laws just ends up with complicated rules, loopholes, and twisting the rules to a companies advantage.
You don't think French taxi drivers are burning cars, and rioting over safety of the consumer do you? There doing it because its breaking there self-interested monopoly.
What you described, though debatable on its own, has nothing to do with regulatory capture.
> Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".
Errm "instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating"
Incumbent Taxi companies have been lobbying regulation bodies for laws to stop competition for a long time. That's exactly what i'm talking about. They use excuses like "reducing congestion" etc when more taxi's actually reduces congestion.
This sounds exactly like regulatory capture. The taxi and limo commissions are doing exactly this.
Uber is taking advantage of a market that has been completely stifled by regulatory capture, allowing the incumbents to catastrophically under invest in personnel, systems and vehicles. These companies pillaged the industry with terrible services. Competition is going to bring them back to the table with far better service and pricing.
What about legitimate regulations that Uber skirts by drawing semantic distinctions? When an Uber driver refuses to make accommodations for riders with disabilities (as required by law in the US), Uber says, "sorry, not our driver -- we only serve as an intermediary." When Uber argues their drivers who meet the criteria of full time employees are just contractors to avoid all the complexities that entails, they are breaking the law (regardless of what the law "should be").
Uber riders (myself among them) are enjoying low fares paid for in an investor-fueled land-grab to capture some market share. The only question is whether their heavy-handed tactics will result in adequate market share to maintain the business profitably without incurring regulatory or consumer blowback. I would say so far that the answer is "yes".
I think there is a sustainable business model for Uber, but I don't think that Uber-in-5-years is going to be playing the same games that they're playing today.
Uber's big advantage is that they aren't taxis. They don't pick people up off the side of the road who are holding their hands up, or go in taxi queues at the airport.
There are good reasons for those services to be regulated the way they are; the consumer has much less choice and power.
Uber is in the car service model, where you call someone to come get you. (Taxis have been very big players in this market, so it's confusing, but their displacement here is very real and also very fair.)
Uber has gotten good enough that people very rarely need that first protected-and-regulated market any more.
But on the other hand, someone driving whole day, every day for Uber is an Uber employee, straight and simple. Yet uber refuses to treat them as employees, because it insists they are contractors. As the recent California ruling shows - they are not.
Have you talked to an Uber driver who told you this? Jason Fried once commented about how he talked to his Uber drivers about the service, so I started doing it too. I have heard complaints, but I have never heard an Uber driver say that Uber was worse than the cab or car dispatch companies the driver worked at before. Not once.
I don't ever take UberX cars, though. Is that where the screwing is happening?
I always take UberX, I usually talk to the driver, and I almost never hear complaints. (The sole exception: when they lowered prices here in Boston). It's usually lots of praise.
I also often meet new drivers who are in love with the idea that they can work whenever they feel like it after their shift at the restaurant, or are retired, or somesuch. I don't know whether it's just a continuous stream of new drivers, but it seems like there's room for a world where all drivers are part-timers. It screws with the career drivers, but who are we to say that the part timers don't deserve that revenue?
That's marketing for you. There's been enough scandals in the past two years for it to be clear this is an evil company, but not many people know about this. For most, Uber is this cool new disruptive startup with awesome app and cheaper service, an underdog fighting the Evil Taxi Lords.
The profit motive inevitably leads to a company prioritising dollars over people (whether that is a consumer/supplier/employee/etc). Lets also agree that prioritisation is generally considered "Evil".
The car requirement was a bit evil? 2008 foor door at one point, until they decided to lure Lyft drivers? 'Don't have the right car(on a ever changing list); 'we'll get you a good deal on a new Prius!' ( I know a guy who ruined his credit, and lost a huge down payment because he couldn't make what Uber said he would make with that new Prius. Yes--he was busy on Friday nights driving drunks from bar to bar, but their was not enough work to keep that Prius.)
The best job opportunity for them is the best job opportunity for them. I wouldn't blame Uber for the fact that their driver jobs might not be some idealized version of the best possible job. For many of the drivers, it presumably is the best possible job they can get. I'd blame every other company who couldn't do better, not the one company who seems to be giving the best opportunity.
