http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html
I'm watching this closely. Lots of people in seattle have built fortunes using cheap contract labor through APPS. If Uber falls, then where does postmates, task rabbit, mechanical turk et al go?
Very interesting.
Taxi-cabs are certainly one area where I would really like to see some de-regulation. Or at least re-regulation. Every Uber I've been in has been a better driver, cleaner car, and cheaper (including better tip!) than 90% of the taxi's I've been in.
mtn wrote: Taxi-cabs are certainly one area where I would really like to see some de-regulation. Or at least re-regulation. Every Uber I've been in has been a better driver, cleaner car, and cheaper (including better tip!) than 90% of the taxi's I've been in.
I completely agree. The Taxi industry has not kept up with the times. Nor have any of the other industries being usurped by the whiz bang start ups.
As a business traveller, Uber has truly improved my life. It's a paradigm shift, and Taxis had better heed the lessons or they will go the way of the dinosaurs. I'm not even talking about the rates, I am talking about being able to use a credit card, easily, without hassle or some BS story so you can pocket my cash. And cars that meet a minimum standard, and some way to ensure a timely pickup when needed.
There are two interesting aspects here:
1 - Uber vs Taxi's: I really don't understand why there is any real difference here. Taxis appear to have a LOT more regulations (or Uber fewer), for no particular reason. I have to say though, my limited experience has been that Uber is MUCH better. If for nothing else, the feedback mechanism greatly encourages quality service. Ironically, recently, taking a highly regulated taxi, the car was clearly unsafe! I could feel something in the suspension was very loose. It was pretty scary really.
2 - Contractor vs Employee: This is VERY common with businesses these days. Many businesses are using a large number of contractors as they would employees. At some point they are going to get bit though, especially with a ruling like this. Heck, I know a number of people who where full time employee's, laid off (voluntary retirement actually), then re-hired, as contractors, in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION! Something is very wrong there. With this ruling, it seems very likely lawsuits will start flying.
I'm all for level playing fields in business. I have no love for taxis, but if Uber wants to compete with them, they should have to play by the same rules. ( licenses, taxes, regulations, etc.)
For instance---In Chicago a taxi cab needs a medallion to operate legally. These cost upwards of $200K, and the money raised goes to the govt. Why should Uber drivers be able to skirt this and pay nothing, while receiving income that taxis would otherwise receive?
I see Über as a way of "gaming" the system, and I won't use it until they play by the same rules the taxis/ limo companies have to. I understand the service is great, most of the cars are cleaner and nicer, etc. However, I'll stick with companies who pay regulatory fees / taxes / insurance / etc. Instead of those who have exploited a loophole to avoid paying these fees.
Joe Gearin wrote: I'm all for level playing fields in business. I have no love for taxis, but if Uber wants to compete with them, they should have to play by the same rules. ( licenses, taxes, regulations, etc.) For instance---In Chicago a taxi cab needs a medallion to operate legally. These cost upwards of $200K, and the money raised goes to the govt. Why should Uber drivers be able to skirt this and pay nothing, while receiving income that taxis would otherwise receive? I see Über as a way of "gaming" the system, and I won't use it until they play by the same rules the taxis/ limo companies have to. I understand the service is great, most of the cars are cleaner and nicer, etc. However, I'll stick with companies who pay regulatory fees / taxes / insurance / etc. Instead of those who have exploited a loophole to avoid paying these fees.
I agree with you. Until I need to take a cab back to the hotel at 3AM and I can't hail a cab and I need to take a dump and Uber is readily available. Not the issue in Chicago, sure, but it is a lot of places--Tampa this weekend, for instance, I didn't even see a cab--the only ones that I did see were called to that specific bar.
And even in Chicago, I think Uber is a good thing since those medallions are too expensive for entry. It allows for more competition, which is good. My hope is not that Uber is outlawed, but that the taxi's are re-regulated or de-regulated.
In reply to Joe Gearin:
Joe, what is your feelings towards a company like Tesla? They could be looked at in a similar way. They are profitable because it sells zero emission credits to other manufacturers. The net effect is the price of a new car in CA includes some amount of money the manufacturer passes along to Tesla.
Joe Gearin wrote: I'm all for level playing fields in business. I have no love for taxis, but if Uber wants to compete with them, they should have to play by the same rules. ( licenses, taxes, regulations, etc.) For instance---In Chicago a taxi cab needs a medallion to operate legally. These cost upwards of $200K, and the money raised goes to the govt. Why should Uber drivers be able to skirt this and pay nothing, while receiving income that taxis would otherwise receive? I see Über as a way of "gaming" the system, and I won't use it until they play by the same rules the taxis/ limo companies have to. I understand the service is great, most of the cars are cleaner and nicer, etc. However, I'll stick with companies who pay regulatory fees / taxes / insurance / etc. Instead of those who have exploited a loophole to avoid paying these fees.
I had a group of friends who used to think like you.....until they were robbed at gunpoint by cabbies in Chicago twice in one weekend. First thing I asked was "Why the berkeley weren't you using Uber in Chicago".....needless to say, they use Uber now and don't understand why they didn't before.
So many of these employee versus company things really irritate me. If the terms are spelled out in a contract, and you both agree to the contract, then basic contract law should apply. These things shouldn't need to be pushed into the legal system unless there are contract violations or the contracts are written to be duplicitous. I feel the same way about the minimum wage discussion. You agree to work for a wage you don't "deserve" more just because you can't live on what you are earning - unless the company is screwing you in similar contract shenanigans like I've already mentioned.
T.J. wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: Joe, what is your feelings towards a company like Tesla? They could be looked at in a similar way. They are profitable because it sells zero emission credits to other manufacturers. The net effect is the price of a new car in CA includes some amount of money the manufacturer passes along to Tesla.
I'm not in favor of "zero emission" credits, or carbon credits. I see these as easy targets for graft and corruption. Make a better product, at a reasonable price and let the free market decide.
That said, I am in favor of subsidizing research and development of emerging technologies. I just don't trust the govt. to be honest in doling out the favors once the business is in operation.
As far as mugging by cabbie goes----- this exact scenario could have happened with an Uber driver. Taking Uber is a false security.
Joe,
I agree with you 100% on both points. Apps like Uber and AirB2B are just ways to skirt the regulatory structure that is in place for that industry to make the App creators a lot of money. And no I don't like the carbon credits either. I think Musk is the biggest master out there on how to take hokie government subsidies to line his pockets.
The security issue is nothing that is any different Uber vs Yellow vs. whatever cab company. You are dealing with other people. Sorry anything can happen. Uber does no better job screening it's cabbies than any of the other livery companies. The only difference is Uber drivers are not properly licensed or insured.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
You are right. It's interesting.
But that article is lacking. A lot.
For one thing, they don't say what labor law they are referring to. If it's the FLSA, it's pretty straight forward. If it's the IRS and the issue is mis-classification of employee, that is also quite clear (and grossly overlooked by most people). There are a LOT of companies in gross violation of this, who would NEVER stand a chance in court. (NO, they are NOT a subcontractor because you give them a 1099).
But if it's CA employment law, I don't know anything about it. Could be worse than the Fed, could be easier.
The strongest risk to Uber and other companies is the IRS. There are some very specific details they MUST pay attention to if they are going to succeed walking that thin line.
Wouldn't shock me at all if Uber blew it.
Pretty much every regulation is one of two camps- to generate revenue or to fix a problem. Sometimes they do both.
So before saying that Taxis are over regulated and uuber does a great job- one must understand the point of the regulations.
In this case, what specific regulation should be taken off of taxis?
Which is the question I always ask when someone says that we need less regulation- be specific of which ones you talk of. Some we need, some may be outdated or pointless, some may be getting revenue from people who can't pay it. Some may be pretty required.
Joe Gearin wrote:T.J. wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: Joe, what is your feelings towards a company like Tesla? They could be looked at in a similar way. They are profitable because it sells zero emission credits to other manufacturers. The net effect is the price of a new car in CA includes some amount of money the manufacturer passes along to Tesla.I'm not in favor of "zero emission" credits, or carbon credits. I see these as easy targets for graft and corruption. Make a better product, at a reasonable price and let the free market decide. That said, I am in favor of subsidizing research and development of emerging technologies. I just don't trust the govt. to be honest in doling out the favors once the business is in operation. As far as mugging by cabbie goes----- this exact scenario could have happened with an Uber driver. Taking Uber is a false security.
I disagree with this.
On the surface, I agree. Company should not be underwritten.
But excess carbon credits is basically a by-product of what Tesla builds.
Let me give an example...
Let's say Ford could modify it's specifications so the plastic components it utilizes were made from a chemical process that had a usable by-product. Would it be wrong for Ford to consider using this alternative method and sell the by-product?
Or, what if Ford were to put solar panels on the roof of their plant that were capable of backfeeding the grid with more power than they consumed. Would it be wrong for them to sell this excess power?
Musk has simply figured out how to make his product with an excess he can sell to other companies, which they need.
The credit system exists because it is a goal that is mutually beneficial to society, and the government would like to promote it. Credits enable them to pursue lower pollution goals without charging the taxpayers. Companies who choose to invest, benefit by selling to companies that choose not to. Over time, it's supposed to reward the companies who make better long term decisions.
SVreX wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: You are right. It's interesting. But that article is lacking. A lot.
Yes, it is lacking. I'll bet more will come out as the law suit further develops. Lots of lawsuits on going with the tech companies these days.
This one went all the way to the SC: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-amazon-doesnt-have-to-pay-for-after-hours-time-in-security-lines/2014/12/09/05c67c0c-7fb9-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html
Joe Gearin wrote: I'm all for level playing fields in business. I have no love for taxis, but if Uber wants to compete with them, they should have to play by the same rules. ( licenses, taxes, regulations, etc.)
So, why isn't it the consumer's choice?
As my mother always said, "Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances." I've seen and been in a dozen cabs that were rolling death traps driven by maniacs... but they were regulated if that kind of thing makes you feel safer.
I'd rather ride in a car where the first $200,000 it earns isn't going towards the medallion. It leaves more margin for little stuff like, you know, maintenance.
and it just got more interesting...
http://www.fastcompany.com/3047499/fast-feed/amazon-is-considering-enlisting-ordinary-people-to-deliver-packages
I've already gotten Amazon packages delivered in personal cars. Whether they were Amazon employees or not, I don't know.
Duke wrote: I've already gotten Amazon packages delivered in personal cars. Whether they were Amazon employees or not, I don't know.
probably ontrac like company.
In reply to Duke:
They were the Amazon drones
In reply to Joe Gearin:
The #1 difference with Uber is that you actually get the driver's name, picture, etc on the app before they even show up. If it isn't that person, just walk. That alone makes it a bit safer than cabs(especially where they require cash) 
Safer, nicer, better, etc.
But that (unfortunately) is not the issue.
Uber entered an industry that was regulated, and they KNOWINGLY skirted the laws (perhaps flaunted).
The product is better because they are stealing from the government, and also from their employees.
Why is this the taxi companies fault?
On the contract vs. employee issue: That seems similar to what happened with the school busses around here a few years ago. Most of the drivers were contractors. Somehow the IRS got involved and it ended up going to court with the result being that the drivers who owned their busses remained contractors while the ones who drove school system owned busses were reclassified as employees.
Uber vs. Taxi: I side with the taxi's. No experience with Uber around here but the taxi situation is very good. Never had to wait more than 10 minutes when I have called a taxi and they are always clean, etc.
But both of them have to compete with the local bus system. If you have the time and are willing to walk one block to the bus stop(system is laid out as a hub and spoke so no place in the city is more than one block from a bus stop) Taxi's and Uber can't beat this pricing.
1.One-Way cash fare $1.50
2. One-Day Pass $4.00 (mobile app only)
3..10-trip ticket $13.00
4..20-trip ticket $25.00
5..Monthly Pass $50.00
And that will get you anywhere in the city and surrounding shopping areas as transfers between different routes are free
You'll need to log in to post.
