uber vs taxis

[traininthedistance]

Obviously the medallion system is pure rent-seeking cartelism, and should be smashed to smithereens post haste.  But some of Uber's "innovations" over their competitors are pure cream-skimming like not having handicapped accessibility, and classifying employees as "independent contractors" so they don't have to pay benefits (not that your regular taxi driver really has it any better, mind).  And their specific corporate culture seems to be worse than average.

More choice, better quality, and expanding people's ability to get around without their own private cars is something we desperately need.  So I support the sector.  But I also don't want to just replace one monopoly with another, and not all regulations are evil. 

In conclusion: I'm on Team Lyft.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Obviously the medallion system is pure rent-seeking cartelism, and should be smashed to smithereens post haste.  But some of Uber's "innovations" over their competitors are pure cream-skimming like not having handicapped accessibility, and classifying employees as "independent contractors" so they don't have to pay benefits (not that your regular taxi driver really has it any better, mind).  And their specific corporate culture seems to be worse than average.

More choice, better quality, and expanding people's ability to get around without their own private cars is something we desperately need.  So I support the sector.  But I also don't want to just replace one monopoly with another, and not all regulations are evil. 

In conclusion: I'm on Team Lyft.

Do actual taxis have that? My urban experience is limited, but it's hard to imagine cabs running around, say, New York, with wheelchair ramps and everything.

[traininthedistance]

Obviously the medallion system is pure rent-seeking cartelism, and should be smashed to smithereens post haste.  But some of Uber's "innovations" over their competitors are pure cream-skimming like not having handicapped accessibility, and classifying employees as "independent contractors" so they don't have to pay benefits (not that your regular taxi driver really has it any better, mind).  And their specific corporate culture seems to be worse than average.

More choice, better quality, and expanding people's ability to get around without their own private cars is something we desperately need.  So I support the sector.  But I also don't want to just replace one monopoly with another, and not all regulations are evil.  

In conclusion: I'm on Team Lyft.

Do actual taxis have that? My urban experience is limited, but it's hard to imagine cabs running around, say, New York, with wheelchair ramps and everything.

Not all of them do, but it's required for a certain percentage of the fleet (and is, of course, not cheap to comply with).  You do see wheelchair-accessible cabs from time to time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm shocked the taxi industry just hasn't emulated them and Lyft in most places. In the Twin Cities they have with an app called iHail that basically works exactly like Uber and Lyft for standard taxis.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Uber (not a fan of assholes who abuse their oligopoly position in every possible way).

I'm pleasantly surprised.

There's nothing left-wing about stifling competition and protecting corporatist privileges.

On the other hand, I agree that Uber drivers should be considered as employees and be eligible to all the relevant benefits. Actually, the status of "independent contractor" shouldn't even exist to begin with.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uber (not a fan of assholes who abuse their oligopoly position in every possible way).

I'm pleasantly surprised.

There's nothing left-wing about stifling competition and protecting corporatist privileges.

On the other hand, I agree that Uber drivers should be considered as employees and be eligible to all the relevant benefits. Actually, the status of "independent contractor" shouldn't even exist to begin with.

So what's going to be done if someone needs temporary help on a construction project or some IT work or something?

You don't seem to be aware how most "independent contractors" actually operate (and yes Uber drivers aren't very comparable but that's not really the point)

[dead0man]

Actually, the status of "independent contractor" shouldn't even exist to begin with.

Like, at all, or just for human transportation?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So what's going to be done if someone needs temporary help on a construction project or some IT work or something?

Can't they just hire a worker on a temporary work contract?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bullsh!t self-employment is a terrible thing that has spread out from the construction industry - where at least it is regulated in most countries! - and which needs to be killed with fire.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bullsh!t self-employment is a terrible thing that has spread out from the construction industry - where at least it is regulated in most countries! - and which needs to be killed with fire.

Uh, that's roughly what I just said.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed, though with added context. But you need to understand that the business model of companies like this = 100% reliant on exploiting loopholes in regulations. It's the same with parcel deliver services and so on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indeed, though with added context. But you need to understand that the business model of companies like this = 100% reliant on exploiting loopholes in regulations. It's the same with parcel deliver services and so on.

Sorry, I somehow interpreted "bullsh*t" as referring to my post above rather than as an adjective.

Anyway, I tend to think that a system akin to Uber could very well work even if they had employees instead of "contractors". Didn't a ruling in California recently make them into employees?

[The Other Castro]

I live in DC, so Uber is a must have for me. It is incredibly convenient and I use it all the time. I'm not an online rep for them I swear.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry, I somehow interpreted "bullsh*t" as referring to my post above rather than as an adjective.

It was to distinguish bullsh!t self employment from real self employment (which is not a problem - or even a bad thing - at all).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I understood upon rereading it. I'm posting on the phone for these days, so both my reading and my writing are somewhat more distracted than usual. Sorry again, and FTR I completely agree with your point.

[WVdemocrat]

Uber is very innovative, and I support the concept of Uber, but they need to follow the same rules and regulations of the taxi industry, because they can call Uber cars whatever they want, but they are still taxis.

The whole reason Uber is innovative is that it DOESN'T follow the same rules and regulations as the Taxi Industry. Supporting the concept of Uber and making them follow those regulations means you don't support Uber.

The reason Uber is innovative is because it takes advantage of digital age technology.

The plain fact, however, is that Uber has mischaracterized itself to dodge labor laws, intentionally surges prices, does not require that Uber drivers have taxi licenses, and all-around does not follow the same rules that taxis do, therefore is not a level playing field.

The concept is innovative, but there are certain regulations which they must follow - like labor laws and requiring that drivers have taxi licenses.

[DC Al Fine]

Indeed, though with added context. But you need to understand that the business model of companies like this = 100% reliant on exploiting loopholes in regulations. It's the same with parcel deliver services and so on.

Sorry, I somehow interpreted "bullsh*t" as referring to my post above rather than as an adjective.

Anyway, I tend to think that a system akin to Uber could very well work even if they had employees instead of "contractors". Didn't a ruling in California recently make them into employees?

While I sympathize with the plight of workers improperly classified as contractors, Uber seems like a poor test case for the larger issue. Uber's case is not nearly as clear cut as some of the more prolific abusers of the system.

There are no hard and fast rules on this issue, but courts look at issues like who is bearing financial risk, who decides when and how the work is done, and who provides the equipment and training to decide whether a worker is an employee or not.

e.g.

a) Antonio V hires DC to do accounting for company. He buys DC's computer, accounting and tax software, tells DC when to work, and Antonio bears all the financial risk of DC's decisions. Clearly DC is an employee.

b) Antonio V hires Cathcon to keep the yard and parking lot around his office building clean and tidy. Cathcon has to mow the lawn weekly but he decides when. Cathcon provides the lawnmower and hedge trimmers, and Cathcon can hire other people to do the work if he wants. Clearly Cathcon is a contractor.

In the case of Uber, the driver provides their own car and chooses when they work. At first glance they appear to be contractors. Of course I don't know all the details of Uber and the California ruling, so that's certainly not my professional opinion, but you can see how this issue is fuzzy and how Uber may not be "bullsh!t self-employment".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What annoys me about Uber is how they dress up their use of legal loopholes as a part of a new grand ideology of Silicon Valley - 'the Sharing Economy'.

[DavidB.]

Uber (not a fan of assholes who abuse their oligopoly position in every possible way).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Indeed, though with added context. But you need to understand that the business model of companies like this = 100% reliant on exploiting loopholes in regulations. It's the same with parcel deliver services and so on.

Sorry, I somehow interpreted "bullsh*t" as referring to my post above rather than as an adjective.

Anyway, I tend to think that a system akin to Uber could very well work even if they had employees instead of "contractors". Didn't a ruling in California recently make them into employees?

While I sympathize with the plight of workers improperly classified as contractors, Uber seems like a poor test case for the larger issue. Uber's case is not nearly as clear cut as some of the more prolific abusers of the system.

There are no hard and fast rules on this issue, but courts look at issues like who is bearing financial risk, who decides when and how the work is done, and who provides the equipment and training to decide whether a worker is an employee or not.

e.g.

a) Antonio V hires DC to do accounting for company. He buys DC's computer, accounting and tax software, tells DC when to work, and Antonio bears all the financial risk of DC's decisions. Clearly DC is an employee.

b) Antonio V hires Cathcon to keep the yard and parking lot around his office building clean and tidy. Cathcon has to mow the lawn weekly but he decides when. Cathcon provides the lawnmower and hedge trimmers, and Cathcon can hire other people to do the work if he wants. Clearly Cathcon is a contractor.

In the case of Uber, the driver provides their own car and chooses when they work. At first glance they appear to be contractors. Of course I don't know all the details of Uber and the California ruling, so that's certainly not my professional opinion, but you can see how this issue is fuzzy and how Uber may not be "bullsh!t self-employment".

As much as I enjoy my sporadic appearances in people's examples, I do hope that people perceive my skill set beyond being a janitor and a landscaper. Do I at least get to dig ditches or use chipping hammers?

[ingemann]

I'm with Antonio and Sibboleth on the whole "independent contractor". As for uber, I can't say I care much for their business model.

[Famous Mortimer]

Neither/Moderate Hero/ultra-left position which exempts me from having to take a side.

I don't like ubers business model.

At the same time, there is a reason taxis are dying. I have never gotten a taxi on my own, but I've ridden in them when people I was with insisted on it. Never once has the taxi driver not gotten lost/"gotten lost" despite GPS and the fact that they supposedly have to pass a rigorous geography test to drive in NYC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was kind of shocked the time I had to wait 15 minutes for a taxi to show up when I was in downtown Oakland. I mean the idea that you have to wait that long for a taxi at literally the most downtown intersection in a city of 400,000? Ridiculous.