The Uberpocalypse

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Court rules that Uber drivers are not self-employed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386

Interesting that it's the lead story.

michaels

I don't really get this. If you can choose your own hours and work for other people at the same time, in what way are you an employee?

michaels

Of course the more expensive you make it to have human drivers, the sooner uber will replace them with self driving cars. Wouldn't that be a 'win' for uber contractors?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37117831

Conrad

Great result - I've always argued we should all be prepared (where we can) to pay a little more to ensure everyone earns a little more and enjoys better terms.


Also this is a blow for disruptive capitalism (I saw campaigns about this in Singapore). This is where a handful of capital holders disrupt a perfectly good age old market like the taxi driver interfacing with the passenger, and steps in as a middle man to collect a piece of every fare for the fat cat capital holders - a handful of Zuckerberg spivs in California for example, backed by their global Banking cabal that enables them to dominate sectors and force out all comers.


I don't use Hungryhouse or any of those disruptive spiv platforms - give your money to local trades, don't give a cut to wealthy spivs

Conrad

michaels wrote: »

Of course the more expensive you make it to have human drivers, the sooner uber will replace them with self driving cars. Wouldn't that be a 'win' for uber contractors?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37117831

You'd be the first to applaud in a Question Time audience if one of your heros said 'I believe in fair and decent wages and terms for all', someone like Bob Geldoff, Charlotte Church or Russel Brand


Why then do you not follow through on this impulse? I say all this because you always claim to be caring socialist


I'm the nasty Tory, right?

daveyjp

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Ok but because there's no fat controller, drivers are also free to exploit situations.

A few months ago, the major rail terminal in my area was unexpectedly shut down during rush hour and Uber drivers were charging hundreds above the normal rate to drive stranded passengers home.

That's an Uber algorithm, nothing to do with the drivers. They did the same when Sydney had to close down due to a hostage situation and New York after an explosion.

Uber's answer is the higher fares encourage drivers to the area and put off those who don't really need a taxi.

Great business model - get drivers to enter a danger area and prevent anyone who wants to leave from doing so.

Masomnia

michaels wrote: »

I don't really get this. If you can choose your own hours and work for other people at the same time, in what way are you an employee?

I have to admit I don't get it but I imagine that it's something to do with the definition of 'worker' in the NMW regulations, being broader than the traditional definition of employee.

I'll read the full report any way and see

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

Of course the more expensive you make it to have human drivers, the sooner uber will replace them with self driving cars. Wouldn't that be a 'win' for uber contractors?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37117831

maybe so but that would imply a improvement in productivity.

an example of my oft mentioned proposition that endless supply of cheap labour disincentivises productivity improvements, while labour shortages and associated higher costs encourage them.

sadly, like my many postings about the current accout deficit, the posts were larged not thanked.

michaels

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Ok but because there's no fat controller, drivers are also free to exploit situations.

A few months ago, the major rail terminal in my area was unexpectedly shut down during rush hour and Uber drivers were charging hundreds above the normal rate to drive stranded passengers home.

Allegedly the reason you can't get a regular taxi on a wet Friday evening is because the drivers have all made their daily target by 9PM and knock off - fares being regulated by the local authority they can't charge more so have no incentive to carry on working.

Alternatively let the market come into play and higher prices will increase the number of contractors choosing to make their vehicles available whilst also making some customers decide that despite the rain they can walk or bus it. To me that makes more sense than a 3 hour queue for a cab but what do I know?

michaels

Conrad wrote: »

You'd be the first to applaud in a Question Time audience if one of your heros said 'I believe in fair and decent wages and terms for all', someone like Bob Geldoff, Charlotte Church or Russel Brand


Why then do you not follow through on this impulse? I say all this because you always claim to be caring socialist


I'm the nasty Tory, right?

You do not know me very well if you think I am a socialist or would applaud any of the three you mention. Amusing really as I have been consistently against unlimited migration from lower wage countries which holds down the wages of the lowest skilled, just the sort of thing that your champagne socialist friends would describe as racist whilst benefiting from cheap nannies and plumbers.