• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Uber drivers are employees

HeatXfer said:
"App based transpo service" drivers are in reality independent contractors and Lyft, Uber and their ilk are anti-worker business models. To boot they side-step SF City regulations designed to protect the public from the Daveea Whitmires and Syed Muzaffars of the world.

The only people profiting from these services are the App companies themselves, not the drivers.

Uber & Lyft are fundamentally wrong in their cavalier disregard for the lively hoods and lives their business affects & damages.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What is this "cavalier disregard for livelihood" (I should be thinking about others' job prospects when I make my own decisions?), and what "damages" are we talking about?

In NYC, for example, it's well-known that cab licenses cost upward of $100k, and that they are purposely rationed. How is that "protecting" the public?
 
jdhu said:
Seriously? What is this "cavalier disregard for livelihood" (I should be thinking about others' job prospects when I make my own decisions?), and what "damages" are we talking about?

In NYC, for example, it's well-known that cab licenses cost upward of $100k, and that they are purposely rationed. How is that "protecting" the public?
Click to expand...

"Seriously"? You want to *not* care about people/employees in one thread but want them to care about you in another?!?
 
Last edited:
jdhu said:
Seriously? What is this "cavalier disregard for livelihood" (I should be thinking about others' job prospects when I make my own decisions?), and what "damages" are we talking about?

In NYC, for example, it's well-known that cab licenses cost upward of $100k, and that they are purposely rationed. How is that "protecting" the public?
Click to expand...

bcv _west's Home Depot comment is right on the money. The damages I'm talking about are the loss of income to existing cab drivers who followed the required and expensive licensing requirements to become a taxi driver. The disregard for the livelihoods of established, trained & licensed comes with making any Tom, Dick and Harry a driver. A NY cab sticker is $100k? How much does an Uber or Lyft driver pay to play?

If you had (or have) a job that requires a certain level of expertise that, right or wrong, the state requires training and licensing before you are allowed to practice your profession wouldn't you be hurt by a large group that wholesale takes your job and hands it to literally anyone who said they wanted to try it?

As far as protecting the public, here are the requirements to become a licensed SF taxi driver:

Fingerprints, 10yr print out of driving record, criminal background check, training, being disease-free are part of the licensing process.

Uber & Lyft don't consider their drivers "professional drivers", but because of the gropings, verbal abuse, threats and even vehicular deaths they have since required background checks. So +1 for Uber on that count.

On top of that there are now more vehicles on the road, in the city driven by roving, un-vetted Uberoaches.

And yeah, I get it: the free market place etc. Try seeing the whole picture and this scenario might play out.
 
AbsolutEnduser said:
"Seriously"? You want to *not* care about people/employees in one thread but want them to care about you in another?!?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "care?"

Anyway, if we sat down in person and discussed, would probably agree a lot or at least understand, but I actually thought Heat might be posting sarcastically (I don't remember discussing anything with him before), so asked if he was serious.
 
HeatXfer said:
The damages I'm talking about are the loss of income to existing cab drivers who followed the required and expensive licensing requirements to become a taxi driver. The disregard for the livelihoods of established, trained & licensed comes with making any Tom, Dick and Harry a driver.
Click to expand...

Don't there. Businesses, companies, contractors, etc, compete for business on a daily basis. If each of us had to consider the previous entrant's cost of establishing their businesses and adding on top of that so not to undercut the industry, we'd be paying $100,000 for a sprotbile.
 
I just LOL'd @ the statement "cabdrivers = high level of expertise and training"
bwahhaahhaa. that job has historically been for, uhm, special folks, lots of whom don't speak much English (or shower often).
Sorry if your protectionist attitudes can't preserve your way of life in the face of a changing world. Get at the end of the line behind: Music stores and employees, book stores and employees, ISP employees, TV repairmen, full service gas station attendants, etc.
 
HeatXfer said:
bcv _west's Home Depot comment is right on the money. The damages I'm talking about are the loss of income to existing cab drivers who followed the required and expensive licensing requirements to become a taxi driver. The disregard for the livelihoods of established, trained & licensed comes with making any Tom, Dick and Harry a driver. A NY cab sticker is $100k? How much does an Uber or Lyft driver pay to play?

If you had (or have) a job that requires a certain level of expertise that, right or wrong, the state requires training and licensing before you are allowed to practice your profession wouldn't you be hurt by a large group that wholesale takes your job and hands it to literally anyone who said they wanted to try it?

As far as protecting the public, here are the requirements to become a licensed SF taxi driver:

Fingerprints, 10yr print out of driving record, criminal background check, training, being disease-free are part of the licensing process.

Uber & Lyft don't consider their drivers "professional drivers", but because of the gropings, verbal abuse, threats and even vehicular deaths they have since required background checks. So +1 for Uber on that count.

On top of that there are now more vehicles on the road, in the city driven by roving, un-vetted Uberoaches.

And yeah, I get it: the free market place etc. Try seeing the whole picture and this scenario might play out.
Click to expand...

OK. I already posted in this thread that by forcing high fees and requirements on licensed cabs, we create an unlevel playing field. My answer is to remove those fees/requirements from everyone, not to impose them on Uber's contractors.

It's a little laughable to me to talk about the professionalism involved in driving. What "training" is there, and wow, "disease free?" I would have to see at least some stats to show that Uber and Lyft drivers have, per capita, caused more accidents, assaults/batteries on customers, and the transmitting of infectious diseases than cab drivers. You can't prove a negative, but I have to wonder how much these regulations helped prevent whatever misconduct on customers. Is there no legal recourse against an Uber driver? Of course there is.

You completely ignore the benefits that Uber allows the private drivers. I've used Uber perhaps 10 times, and of course this is anecdotal, but each driver was happy with Uber's terms. I know one Uber driver personally, and it has really helped her financially.

It's not Uber's fault that there are expensive cab licensing fees. Again, isn't the simple solution to remove those fees?
 
More thinking about it, why are the drivers contractors? As someone else mentioned, Uber simply connects customers to available cars nearby, right? It's the payment from the customer touching Uber at some level that makes the drivers employees?
 
jdhu said:
More thinking about it, why are the drivers contractors? As someone else mentioned, Uber simply connects customers to available cars nearby, right? It's the payment from the customer touching Uber at some level that makes the drivers employees?
Click to expand...

Click on the link in first post to read the ruling.
 
augustiron said:
Get at the end of the line behind: Music stores and employees, book stores and employees, ISP employees, TV repairmen, full service gas station attendants, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not too keen on technologies and advancements that ultimately translate in hundreds or thousands of lost jobs. The self-driving car is one that I fear. Thousands of taxi/Uber, lorry, bus, and delivery drivers jobs will eventually be eliminated. High unemployment suck for all. We just saw that in 2009-2013.

That said, the taxi business was seriously overdue for a reform. I was at a point to walk 15-20 blocks instead of hailing a taxi. I'd go to parties and not drink because I wanted to drive home instead of calling a taxi.

Uber/Lyft? Yes!

Nice to see that their drivers will be treated fair.
 
bcv_west said:
Click on the link in first post to read the ruling.
Click to expand...

Well I mean, I understand what the Commission ruled. I'm wondering more philosophically...although should read the full text. Fine Fine.
 
Marcoose said:
I'm not too keen on technologies and advancements that ultimately translate in hundreds or thousands of lost jobs. The self-driving car is one that I fear. Thousands of taxi/Uber, lorry, bus, and delivery drivers jobs will eventually be eliminated. High unemployment suck for all. We just saw that in 2009-2013.

That said, the taxi business was seriously overdue for a reform. I was at a point to walk 15-20 blocks instead of hailing a taxi. I'd go to parties and not drink because I wanted to drive home instead of calling a taxi.

Uber/Lyft? Yes!

Nice to see that their drivers will be treated fair.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily saying it'd be a good idea, but I guess you could phase it in, or offer help to professional drivers through new tax relief, grants/subsidized loans for schooling, etc.
 
Marcoose said:
I'm not too keen on technologies and advancements that ultimately translate in hundreds or thousands of lost jobs.
Click to expand...

ZERO existing taxi drivers should be on the unemployment lines because of this. Apparently there is a HUGE need for hired drivers, they just need to adapt to new business models offering superior service instead of clinging to outdated models.
 
Last edited:
Marcoose said:
I'm not too keen on technologies and advancements that ultimately translate in hundreds or thousands of lost jobs. The self-driving car is one that I fear. Thousands of taxi/Uber, lorry, bus, and delivery drivers jobs will eventually be eliminated. High unemployment suck for all. We just saw that in 2009-2013.

That said, the taxi business was seriously overdue for a reform. I was at a point to walk 15-20 blocks instead of hailing a taxi. I'd go to parties and not drink because I wanted to drive home instead of calling a taxi.

Uber/Lyft? Yes!

Nice to see that their drivers will be treated fair.
Click to expand...

All those people driving for Uber were getting zero return on their cars and time before Uber put customers and suppliers together. Why fear change? I'm pretty happy not to be driving a horse and buggy, even if it put a bunch of farriers and horse manure pooper scoopers out of work. On the plus side, technology usually creates a lot more growth than it eliminates. And self-driving cars will eliminate a lot more than taxi jobs. I've posted this before, but think about all the jobs dependent on bad driving. Speeding goes to zero; accidents are hugely reduced; fuel use gets more efficient. Cops writing traffic tickets will need something else to do. Municipals dependent on those revenues will need to balance their budgets. Body shops will go out of business. Insurance agents will have time on their hands. Hell, if you can dial up a self-driving car from Uber when you need one (because now it's as cheap as maintaining a fleet of them), maybe you don't even need to own a car yourself (that's Google's vision). And maybe the range limitations on electric cars become manageable; the car can drive itself to a charging station while you're at work. Or you could stage them on long trips, like the pony express. Who knows, that's the whole point.
 
HeatXfer said:
"App based transpo service" drivers are in reality independent contractors and Lyft, Uber and their ilk are anti-worker business models. To boot they side-step SF City regulations designed to protect the public from the Daveea Whitmires and Syed Muzaffars of the world.

The only people profiting from these services are the App companies themselves, not the drivers.

Uber & Lyft are fundamentally wrong in their cavalier disregard for the lively hoods and lives their business affects & damages.
Click to expand...

No, they are completely right. Much as with the Air BnB solution for Hotels mentioned earlier the system has become grotesquely corrupt and are horrifically over regulating business to the point where new business models are being invented to work around them. Business regulation should only exist to promote growth and development of the industries regulated and these systems clearly are not doing that and are in fact attempting to innovate new parasitic infestations to continue to bloat the evil of taxation so that the graft mongers in public employ can continue to line their barrels with pork at the community well.
 
A lot of you are missing the point. Uber is exercising too much control over it's employees to classify them as contractors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top