> "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law"

I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear.

We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.

> We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want.

Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for.

> We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.

I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit.

The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified.

What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.

>The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law

That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.

On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees.

There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.

>On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees.

I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company.

Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion).

Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...

>by dodging taxes

Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..

>for their disguised employees.

Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.

>Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..

But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning.

It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.

>It's a very grey area here

It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?

>We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want.

No. WE as people should hesitate to put laws in place. Every law and regulation has a intrinsic cost (to implement, follow and enforce) that takes away from economic growth and opportunity ... and when all is said and done, government laws do not create prosperity. Economic prosperity only comes from the market.

Laws and regulations are necessary but WE should be judicious with what WE choose to regulate.

>We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.

This is a very naive view of laws and regulations. If it was so easy to do things with policy, the most corrupt nations could simply pass laws to make corruption illegal and be done with it. Poor nations could simply legislate economic prosperity!! Why doesn't that work?

You constructed a bit of a strawman for yourself here.

He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few and/or corporations explicitly to the benefit of society on a number of non-monetary axes like environment, workers wellbeing, etc.

This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.

>You constructed a bit of a strawman for yourself here.

Not a strawman, just a qualification. Their statement was ambiguous and could be compatible with what I argued.

>He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few

I don't disagree with that. Every law and regulation reduces economic opportunity and increases costs, but that's not an argument to not have any laws and regulations. It's an argument to be careful and measured when you do and understand that there is a cost to those policies even if they are necessary for societal well-being. That was my argument (or qualification) in response to OP, who was suggesting we should liberally apply laws and regulations. That I certainly disagreed with.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for anarcho-capitalist economy. I think a mixed economy with a free market foundation, reasonable regulations and taxation and reasonable welfare policies is the best we can expect. One of the things I'm really worried about from the modern left is that there is little to no acknowledgement of the necessity of having an market-based economy.

>This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.

Full agreement.

I think he also meant that Uber could not compete, if it does this alone without its competitors doing the same.

This is a bit rich from a company that has undercut many markets by classifying its workers as independent contractors.

"I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"

This is a bit rich when you think about who else would be an authoritative source to talk about these problems and draw a blank.

Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective.

And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated.

There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do.

I think talking about the challenges have merit.

My take from the article is thay if Uber were to currently offer its "driver-partners" benefits like health insurance, they would legally be considered employees, which neither party wants.

That's not true. A company can offer self-employed insurance, or extend a group plan to contractors.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/small-business/of...

Why don't Uber's 'employees who we don't call employees' not want their health insurance to be paid?

Some (not all) may not wish to be classified as employees for various reasons would be my guess. Health insurance is a separate concern and should probably be handled by the state rather than by random corporations anyway like every other 1st world country.

>various reasons //

But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?

If you are an independent contractor you are protected under a different set of rights vs an employee. The main right people are interested in when pursuing independent contracting is ability to set their own hours, both in amount and distribution.

There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.

That's a reason not to want a fixed hours contract, that's nowhere near inherent in the concept of being an employee.

Part of being an employee is that your employer can dictate hours. You are ofcourse free to negotiate otherwise but if it's a minimum wage low skill position you don't generally have the power to do that.

It's important to remember that companies will always take the maximum they can get away with for the least compensation.

In the current situation that is asserting some control over the drivers to disincentivize them declining jobs but fairly little else because to exert more control would invalidate their claim their drivers are independent contractors. This is beneficial to Uber as they don't need to pay payroll taxes and provide health benefits etc that are tied to employment in US. i.e the overall cost to Uber per km driven is probably lowest this way.

The moment their drivers become employees there is no benefit to them not exerting all the control they can under an employment agreement. For instance there will no longer need to be a system for surge pricing because there won't be a need for surge compensation for drivers to increase supply because now the drivers are employees you can schedule shifts to ensure demand is met with sufficient supply.

Will it lead to a large portion of Uber drivers no longer being able to drive for Uber? Most likely. Will the drivers that remain be better off? Most likely as they were probably already full-time but not receiving benefits. Will ride prices go up? Most likely. Would this be better overall? Maybe, it's not as clear cut as a lot of people are making it out to be.

As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that.

I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.

Depends on the board, and depends on the circumstance.

If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more.

Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.

I agree, the question is unfortunately in many of these cases. Will the lawsuits actually cost us billions, or will we get a slap on the wrist and actually be better off in the end if we take that hit. Because we can grow faster now. See Google or Microsoft anti-trust.

How about quitting?

Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.

Quitting would be an act of protest in argument for a better alternative. Such as a government-mandated requirement.

You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations.

But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber.

In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.

I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything.

These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen.

I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.

That’s standard tax minimizing behavior from right to left.