I think a key component of contractors' rights going forward will be legislating their employers' ability to "lock them in" with loyalty programs and the like.

"Ride-sharing" has started to become a commodity and one of the only options left for large companies to out-compete small ones is to have a locked-in supply of drivers. This leads to lowering of standards for registration, temporary incentives, etc. that I think are ultimately bad for the drivers and consumers.

Why should a driver have to decide whether to primarily drive for Uber or Lyft if they aren't an employee of either? If there is no downside to a driver registering for another company, it will allow competition to focus on quality of service, tech, etc. rather than simply having the biggest supply of drivers.

Maybe a driver has a shitty car, but can still register on every app except for the super-upscale one. Maybe a driver hasn't had a background check run, so he can only register for the cheaper sketchy app that most people worried about safety don't use. Doesn't that make more sense than this ridiculous scramble for a "network effect" capable of justifying Uber's valuation?

> I do not understand the sensationalism. I think there would be reason to be upset if Uber decided to enforce a system where if you drive less than $x per week then y% of your nominal rate is cut. However, this is a incentivizing system, not a coercing system. In other words instead of punishing those that do not drive as much, it's rewarding those that do.

First off, "reward high performers" and "punish low performers" are equivalent as long as both systems are explained fairly up-front.

But more relevant here is that a percentage change is much more defensible. The worst case scenario is still getting money per mile, but less of it. That's very different from starting off $115 in the hole.

> It's effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts.

With a loyalty card, you're in full control of how much you purchase through it. It's not dependent on the luck of the draw over a course of a particular week.

It's the combination of a flat fee and the random (uber-controlled, too) nature that makes this deal throw up all sorts of red flags.

I agree. This is just a way to encourage supply in a busy period by asking for an early commitment. Drivers get paid more for committing to work, and people get lower fares because of less need for peak surcharges. This is the market working. Nobody is forced to accept it.

How do you know people will not pay peak surcharges? This is pure conjecture.

If Uber is successful in getting drivers on the road in anticipation of high demand in a given area at a given time, they will not need to activate the surge charge.

They may not need to, but that doesn't rule out it happening

So the driver ends up paying the peak surcharges? That's what it looks like to me.

No. The driver gets paid more (33%) as a result of the commitment. There is less peak surcharge.

Yes but uber is evil and everything they do is evil and I need somewhere to aim my anger. /S

> Yes but uber is evil and everything they do is evil

Well, it is and they do. No need for the "/s"

Don’t be fooled, Uber deserves all the bad publicity and negative bias it gets.