Oooooooor all of the "Uber" drivers who are participating in this shutdown will log out of Uber for the day and drive exclusively for the 12 Uber competitors that they are currently simultaneously driving for.

Customers, who also use all 12 apps simultaneously, will be unable to get an Uber in a timely manner, open a different app, and the same driver who would otherwise have picked them up for Uber will pick them up for one of the twelve different competitors.

The driver gets paid, Uber doesn't get a cut, and a little bit of brand loyalty is lost as the customer is a little less likely to open Uber first the next time.

I think we're on the same page in our thought process. The opportunity cost of this strike is unclear to those who choose to take part. I'm not hopeful this will bring the change these drivers are seeking.

Everyone who ever goes on strike is aware that they are doing so at the cost of their wages for that period. That's why long strikes are rare and gruelling.

However, the cost to Uber is hard to predict - the strike is on the day of the IPO. If they can depress the share price at IPO by a few percent that potentially costs Uber far more than all the lost rides.

Edit: I suppose the entertaining thing about the gig economy is that it's possible to be "on strike" at employer A while working for employer B. Especially as there's no picket line here. (I think a few French anti-Uber strike/protests did have roadblock picket lines)

Fair point. Interested in seeing how this all plays out.

Uber drivers are unaware of the "opportunity cost”? Really? The main factor in their pay is something I'd say you should give them credit for being aware of.

Utterly absurd assumption, they know exactly the cost and better than anyone else.

Taxis still exist, surge pricing really will struggle above that. Most uber rides aren't of necessity, many studies have shown they replace public transport.

The main basis of opportunity cost is knowing both outcomes of each decision and choosing the outcome that makes the most sense based on resource scarcity (ability to both strike and work at the same time in this case). While they may very well know how much money they'll lose by not working those 12 hours, they certainly don't know the true cost and gain of the same decision, thus making the opportunity cost unclear.

That's really the basis of my comment. It's not an assumption, it's quite black and white.

I wouldn’t actually make much sense to earn even, say, 10x as much as normal for 12h, if by doing so you lower your chance of even marginal (but lasting) improvements in working conditions.

It would also show how selfishness hurts you in the long term, and why unions are necessary to establish balance of power in negotiations.