The Gig Economy

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not everyone has the resources to start their own company that could compete with Uber or Lyft.

Organized labor is just the free market at work.  Why do you oppose that?

I have said they are free to do as they like and the company is free to do nothing in response. The problem is organizing around people that possess no skills and are on boarded through a phone app provides no leverage to those organizing. It's not so much I oppose it, it's more that it pointless.

What I am fighting against is the idea that somehow the companies have wronged these contractors. In terms of contracted work they have done nothing any different then most contractors runs in to. The issue for them is there isn't high demand for unlicensed drivers who otherwise had no use other than on the platforms created by the two main companies. The fact their skills are in low demand with a surplus of similarly unskilled labor isn't the fault of the companies who built the platforms. 

They can want more without the companies being bad for not giving them what they want. If everyone at my company wants to work from home, and the company says no, that doesn't make the company evil for saying no. This used to be described as weighing your options and making adult decisions based on the options. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what it all boils down to.  

The business owners have all the power.  Their only motive is profit so they will exploit labor as much as possible to make the highest profits.

The individual worker has ZERO power.  He could leave and go to another job, but at that job the owners will have all the power also.  The only way for workers to have any power to protect themselves from exploitation is if the organize and work together.

That is the free market at work.  And that is what these drivers are doing.

Yes. And the legal system largely supports this arrangement, though it is contested to some degree by laws legalizing unions and outlawing child labor and setting safety regulations and the like. 

For the last 200 years labor and capital have been fighting over these laws, with capital appealing to contract and free choice and labor constructing conditions which either make real freedom of choice possible or, barring that, at least some dignity and control over the work process.

The difficulty now is to understand how exploitation works under contemporary conditions, when business after business has divested itself of any responsibility for workers to create an economic environment increasingly reliant on part-time/"contract" labor, which can be paid piece-rates and shelved when not in use.

(Au's example of good paying work as a truck driver is interesting here, as it is a job which requires serious life style adjustments probably not open to single mothers, and is not really that easy.  Even so, I would assume that there is still a sufficient supply of able-bodied people out there. I would like to know more about why there is a dearth of drivers.)

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 02:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: What I am fighting against is the idea that somehow the companies have wronged these contractors. In terms of contracted work they have done nothing any different then most contractors runs in to. The issue for them is there isn't high demand for unlicensed drivers who otherwise had no use other than on the platforms created by the two main companies. The fact their skills are in low demand with a surplus of similarly unskilled labor isn't the fault of the companies who built the platforms. 

I guess you did not read the part where they have reduced their pay while demand seems to be on the rise.

In fact there seems to be a very large demand for these ride services.  If not then how are Uber and Lyft IPOs worth billions of dollars?

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I guess you did not read the part where they have reduced their pay while demand seems to be on the rise.

In fact there seems to be a very large demand for these ride services.  If not then how are Uber and Lyft IPOs worth billions of dollars?

Uber's paying process isn't as easy as saying "reduced pay". They pay on time and distance and as they adjust they tend to raise one and lower the other as they look to try to maximize people's profits in various cities. Recently they made a move to address people who hit traffic lowering the distance rate while increasing the time rate. What this did was make trips that are straight shots with no traffic less valuable but trips that had more traffic more valuable. Reduced pay is person by person as others in certain areas now make more than they previously did. The other issue is related to a market flooded by drivers depending on location and time of day. When people can jump from one fare to the next their per hour take home will be less than when their was a high demand with a lower supply of drivers. My understanding though is Uber hasn't changed their "take rate" or what percentage they get per ride in years.

You aren't real familiar with tech IPO's are you? Tech is the one place where balance sheets don't matter, in fact you don't have to be close to profitable to be worth a ton at IPO. It is enigma that no one ever can explain until after they fail when everyone likes to point out their valuation made no sense to start.  To date, Uber has never turned a profit in it's existence. 

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 03:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: You aren't real familiar with tech IPO's are you?

You aren't real familiar with the shell game they are playing are you?

The reason they have not turned a profit is because they are paying their top 5 executives over $200 million a year.

"Poor Poor Uber.  They can't pay their drivers because they are not making any money.  I mean just look.  They don't have any profits."

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 03:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Uber's paying process isn't as easy as saying "reduced pay". 

But it is easy to say that the drivers are not getting the pay they were promised.

What happened to "Everyone is getting what they agreed to."

You have to remember that Uber is not just paying these drivers.  Uber is also renting their cars, except the car owner does not get any rent for his car.  So some of these drivers may be paying for and maintaining a more expensive car than they would if they were not riving for these companies.  That is an investment on their part.  So it is not fair for Uber to pull the rug out from under them and cut their pay.  

[Benton]

(05-10-2019, 03:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Uber's paying process isn't as easy as saying "reduced pay". 

It may not be that easy, but that's the end result. If they say they're paying X and charging consumers X under the pretense that they're paying X... but then pay Y... they're being dishonest at best.

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 06:08 PM)Benton Wrote: It may not be that easy, but that's the end result. If they say they're paying X and charging consumers X under the pretense that they're paying X... but then pay Y... they're being dishonest at best.

Yea, that’s not how it works. Uber didn’t promise to pay them anything they said they’d take x cut of fares and nothing of their tips. The price of fares have always been fluid including surge pricing where they get a larger cut. Changing the formula for what customers pay is what has been deemed the “paying less” and as I explained the environment which some people drive in is what caused that while others in more congested areas actually got an increase because of that rate change.

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But it is easy to say that the drivers are not getting the pay they were promised.

What happened to "Everyone is getting what they agreed to."

You have to remember that Uber is not just paying these drivers.  Uber is also renting their cars, except the car owner does not get any rent for his car.  So some of these drivers may be paying for and maintaining a more expensive car than they would if they were not riving for these companies.  That is an investment on their part.  So it is not fair for Uber to pull the rug out from under them and cut their pay.  

They were never “promised” a rate though.they get a cut of rates with rates determined by Uber.

How is this any different than any other contractor? If I use a handyman he is a contracted employee and I have used his tools and his insurance and such. If I contract him for multiple jobs in succession there is no guarantee each rate will be the same and he can refuse to continue to work from job to job.

They are contractors, the government agrees. If they weren’t contractors all of these arguments would hold more water but since they are contractors they simply don’t. As I keep pointing out the fight is with the government classification not with Uber.

[Benton]

(05-10-2019, 06:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, that’s not how it works. Uber didn’t promise to pay them anything they said they’d take x cut of fares and nothing of their tips. The price of fares have always been fluid including surge pricing where they get a larger cut. Changing the formula for what customers pay is what has been deemed the “paying less” and as I explained the environment which some people drive in is what caused that while others in more congested areas actually got an increase because of that rate change.

It's basic commission.

You agree to your percentage/fee/rate (in this case, it's based off a fluctuating regional scale), and that's the base. If there adjustments based off increased costs or tine, that gets factored in (in this case, in the form of a formula of time/distance). 

The driver's took the job based off the payout as it was. Lyft and Uber changed that to pay out less. And they told consumers there was a change, but it wouldn't impact driver pay (which was incorrect).

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 08:26 PM)Benton Wrote: It's basic commission.

You agree to your percentage/fee/rate (in this case, it's based off a fluctuating regional scale), and that's the base. If there adjustments based off increased costs or tine, that gets factored in (in this case, in the form of a formula of time/distance). 

The driver's took the job based off the payout as it was. Lyft and Uber changed that to pay out less. And they told consumers there was a change, but it wouldn't impact driver pay (which was incorrect).

Let's me pivot for a second and I'll go down a different path than I have been because something interesting is happening. Everyone here caught up with the "they changed the pay" argument let me ask a you a question. Have you ever worked somewhere where they have changed commission rates? I have, and so has probably anyone who has ever worked on commission for long periods of time. Why is this some moral injustice? They didn't change the rate on any services already rendered, so how was I or anyone else wronged? I CHOSE to continue to work at the adjusted rate.

Now back to the post here, no see they didn't actually take the job based on the payout because signing up for the app isn't taking a job (As the courts have agreed with). The app is a platform for finding work, think of it as an Angie's list type site that handymen use. They are contractors on a platform looking for work and each time they turn on their app and accept a ride they have taken a "job" like a contracted brick layer accepting a new job on a construction site. After they drop off their rider they are now out looking for a new job as a contractor. The rate could change at that moment as they look for a new job and then they must decide if they want to take anymore jobs on this platform, or they can go choose to work on another platform that may offer jobs that are more lucrative. 

The funny thing in all of this is there is a national taxi driver union. Isn't that kind of ironic?

[Belsnickel]

(05-13-2019, 08:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: Let's me pivot for a second and I'll go down a different path than I have been because something interesting is happening. Everyone here caught up with the "they changed the pay" argument let me ask a you a question. Have you ever worked somewhere where they have changed commission rates? I have, and so has probably anyone who has ever worked on commission for long periods of time. Why is this some moral injustice? They didn't change the rate on any services already rendered, so how was I or anyone else wronged? I CHOSE to continue to work at the adjusted rate.

Now back to the post here, no see they didn't actually take the job based on the payout because signing up for the app isn't taking a job (As the courts have agreed with). The app is a platform for finding work, think of it as an Angie's list type site that handymen use. They are contractors on a platform looking for work and each time they turn on their app and accept a ride they have taken a "job" like a contracted brick layer accepting a new job on a construction site. After they drop off their rider they are now out looking for a new job as a contractor. The rate could change at that moment as they look for a new job and then they must decide if they want to take anymore jobs on this platform, or they can go choose to work on another platform that may offer jobs that are more lucrative. 

The funny thing in all of this is there is a national taxi driver union. Isn't that kind of ironic?

This is how I view all of this, as well. Again, don't mistake my view on contract work in this way as saying nothing should be done, but just that this is how contract workers operate in the United States and why I don't think these drivers should in any way be surprised at what has happened or that they should be surprised when their efforts turn out to be mostly fruitless.

As for the union, absolutely. Especially since these drivers now on strike put so many of those union drivers out of business.

[Benton]

(05-13-2019, 08:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: Let's me pivot for a second and I'll go down a different path than I have been because something interesting is happening. Everyone here caught up with the "they changed the pay" argument let me ask a you a question. Have you ever worked somewhere where they have changed commission rates? I have, and so has probably anyone who has ever worked on commission for long periods of time. Why is this some moral injustice? They didn't change the rate on any services already rendered, so how was I or anyone else wronged? I CHOSE to continue to work at the adjusted rate.

Not sure why you're jumping from 'this isn't a good business practice' to 'this is a moral injustice.'

But to answer your question, I have. Same company twice paid me less than minimum wage after they switched to a "more consistent" pay method. They still do it to people. 

Quote:Now back to the post here, no see they didn't actually take the job based on the payout because signing up for the app isn't taking a job (As the courts have agreed with).

I'm not getting into legal definitions of words. They agreed to become drivers for those companies (as opposed to working for a taxi company or driving a bus) because of whatever reason. Logically, the pay rate was probably a factor for many. I'm not going to spend a lot of time juggling the logic of people doing a job for a company for money and whether or not someone else defines that as a job.

Quote: The app is a platform for finding work, think of it as an Angie's list type site that handymen use. 

The difference being that Angie's List doesn't tell the plumber he has to fix the clog for X dollars. The plumber sets his price. If Uber wants to let drivers set their rate and take X commission, then I think there's less of a deceptive issue. 

Quote:They are contractors on a platform looking for work and each time they turn on their app and accept a ride they have taken a "job" like a contracted brick layer accepting a new job on a construction site. After they drop off their rider they are now out looking for a new job as a contractor. The rate could change at that moment as they look for a new job and then they must decide if they want to take anymore jobs on this platform, or they can go choose to work on another platform that may offer jobs that are more lucrative. 




The funny thing in all of this is there is a national taxi driver union. Isn't that kind of ironic?

We'll eventually get back around to that, but not for a while. Big business has spent a ton on making sure "labor" and "unions" are bad words. I wonder how many of the drivers trying to get people to organize and protest are also guys who would say 'I'd never join a union, they're bad.'

[Au165]

(05-13-2019, 10:27 AM)Benton Wrote: I'm not getting into legal definitions of words. 

That definition is the whole crux of this discussion.

[GMDino]

(05-13-2019, 10:27 AM)Benton Wrote: Not sure why you're jumping from 'this isn't a good business practice' to 'this is a moral injustice.'

But to answer your question, I have. Same company twice paid me less than minimum wage after they switched to a "more consistent" pay method. They still do it to people. 


I'm not getting into legal definitions of words. They agreed to become drivers for those companies (as opposed to working for a taxi company or driving a bus) because of whatever reason. Logically, the pay rate was probably a factor for many. I'm not going to spend a lot of time juggling the logic of people doing a job for a company for money and whether or not someone else defines that as a job.


The difference being that Angie's List doesn't tell the plumber he has to fix the clog for X dollars. The plumber sets his price. If Uber wants to let drivers set their rate and take X commission, then I think there's less of a deceptive issue. 


We'll eventually get back around to that, but not for a while. Big business has spent a ton on making sure "labor" and "unions" are bad words. I wonder how many of the drivers trying to get people to organize and protest are also guys who would say 'I'd never join a union, they're bad.'

This plus workers asking for more is now treated as them being "greedy" versus the CEO's making bigger profits and making more themselves is treated as "good business".

[Belsnickel]

The sooner that we recognize that what Uber and Lyft are doing is how the system works, and it is legal to do so without the workers having much to do about it, the sooner we can begin pushing harder for policy solutions that will help ensure the welfare of our citizenry.

[Dill]

(05-13-2019, 10:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: That definition is the whole crux of this discussion.

But not the definition of "choose" and "agreement"?

[*bfine32*]

I think the biggest vulnerability to uber and lyft drivers in their pursuit to get increased percentages is: They bring absolutely no skill set to the table. I mean sure, you gotta have a driver's license, but who the hell doesn't have one of them other that low income democratic voters?

[Dill]

(05-13-2019, 10:27 AM)Benton Wrote: We'll eventually get back around to that, but not for a while. Big business has spent a ton on making sure "labor" and "unions" are bad words. I wonder how many of the drivers trying to get people to organize and protest are also guys who would say 'I'd never join a union, they're bad.'

Big business, some of them at least, have also invested in converting employees to "contractors" who "choose" to work under whatever conditions employers and markets decide. 

[fredtoast]

(05-13-2019, 08:24 AM)Au165 Wrote:  I CHOSE to continue to work at the adjusted rate.

And if enough driver chose not to work for that rate Uber and Lyft will have to raise the rate.

So what is wrong with the drivers organizing for better pay?