I hate to say I told you so, but… no… wait… I actually kinda love saying I told you so:
Some UberX drivers in Seattle are no longer working for Uber as a way to protest how they’ve been treated by the transportation company.
About 100 drivers from a new group called Seattle Ride-Share Drivers Association gathered Wednesday to show their frustration with a recent price reduction Uber has implemented.
[…] The Seattle Ride-Share Drivers Association, which has 500 members, said Uber’s claim that its drivers are making more overall income is “unfounded.” It noted how some drivers, when expenses are accounted for, are actually now losing money when accepting a ride.
“No sensible person would stop working if he or she is making more money,” association board member Jamal Ahmed told GeekWire.
One of the more insulting and Orwellian attacks on me for advocating a more gradual and regulated entry of so-called “ride share” into Seattle’s taxi and for-hire market, was the charge that I was “anti-driver”—that I was shamelessly (and perhaps racistly) shilling for exploitive taxi owners at the expense of the city’s largely immigrant for-hire work force.
Well, you tell me: who is exploiting who?
Yes, under the old system we had a regulated monopoly with legal barriers to entry, but at least we had government regulators charged with looking out for the interests of drivers and consumers. But when Uber and Lyft are done with their creative destruction, there will be one, maybe two out-of-state for-profit monoliths dominating the market and dictating terms to drivers and customers alike.
Uber is going to have to do something to justify its $17 billion market capitalization. And as UberX drivers are beginning learn, that something will come at their expense.
Meanwhile, the lack of caps leaves aggrieved drivers nearly powerless to wage a meaningful protest. With over a thousand drivers in its system UberX apparently suffered no slow down in pick up times due to the labor action. It’s like UberX has a virtual scab feature built right in. Hooray for progress!
There’s these wise words written earlier that I think are appropriate.
“Nobody Is Forced to (Drive for Uber)”
and Uber will cease to exist without drivers.
Also, how is this complaint different from how taxi drivers say the owners limit their profits/charge too much to use their equipment. http://www.seattlepi.com/local.....275893.php
but, umm, how would you feel if a municipal broadband service were created with some bonds backed by tax revenues ? Such a service might displace the entrenched franchise of Comcast and disrupt CenturyLink’s gigabit plans…… I’m sure they’d cry bloody murder about an uneven market and differing regulations too.
I think it would still pass a public vote, just like overturning caps on TNCs would have.
I’ve seen you post anti-Uber stuff in the past, and it always surprised me, because we’re usually on the same wavelength. I realized that maybe the difference here is… Goldy, what’s your experiences as a consumer with Seattle’s taxis versus Uber cars?
It’s interesting to read this and know that thousands of rides were canceled by uber in the past year (I think this is the right time frame…)– I had a friend going to an interview from cap hill to downtown, and her uber ride was canceled 30 minutes before the interview, and she was late!! No wonder the drivers are canceling if the ride is not worth what they’re making! She didn’t get the job, FYI…
The drivers lose money on every trip but Uber figures they can make it up with higher volume.
@5… I’m pretty sure the quote was “some drivers, when expenses are accounted for, are actually now losing money”
Of course, that could mean that the drivers who went out and bought new cars and insurance coverage to change from being bike messengers to Uber drivers are losing money when you compare all those costs to what they’re making. The regular-job, car commuting father who decides to drive for Uber on Friday and Saturday evenings rather than watch TV after work has a far different breakdown in expenses.
I reckon it will be the insurers who will kill this in the end. They charge a fortune for hire-or-reward insurance, for good reason; here in the UK it’s typically up to ten times the price of standard insurance. And anybody carrying passengers for hire or reward without that insurance, is effectively uninsured should a collision occur.
I know it’s also been pointed out that some insurers now specifically exempt lift shares. That’s not going to please people who lift share for other reasons, either.
“price reduction”
“suffered no slowdown”
deregulated transport seems to b performing very well for the consumers – and right off the bat, too! hopefully Seattle has more consumers than taxi drivers
how will Uber and/or Lyft dominate the market? with thin margins (the supply of cars that makes them so phenomenally disruptive is not going anywhere)? that seems like a pretty good deal for the majority of people, and it sounds like a lot of crumby jobs that may b better than no job or better than other crumby jobs or easily appended to other jobs
the other lefty labor howl i read this week had to do with the increasing rate of exploitation enjoyed by grain exporters, after an ILWU “cave-in” in the PNW
imagine, a historical-materialist bummed out about people in emerging markets around the Rim getting grain a bit cheaper, because the difference between solidarity and scabbing is more important than prices and volumes
here’s an example of US exploiter in chief (not joshing, exploitation is real) lowering the cost of healthcare
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews......yees.html/