The Uber workers most definitely are not making minimum wage. They actually see very well how much they’re making, and are not as gullible as HN likes to imply to not notice if they were ripped off.
It is common for people here to make argument that Uber drivers make less than minimum wage, but that typically proceeds on some very dubious assumptions, which throw the numbers way off. I don’t want to elaborate too much on nuances of actual operational costs vs IRS mileage rate, depreciation, financing and all that stuff, because there is a more obvious point. Uber drivers can always rent a car from Hertz, which partners with Uber and will rent you a car for ~$250/week. This rate includes all maintenance and repair, so if drivers go this way, their only remaining significant costs are gas and insurance. At the and of the month, they can easily tally up the Hertz bill, their gas costs and their insurance payment, and compare with earnings. Suffice to say, it is above minimum wage, assuming they worked full time.
And that is a very profitable business and healthy market actually the problem is just, Uber would have to give up its world domination plans and admit it's a software company, not the future of transportation
The argument just simply takes the wind out of the sails of Uber's best counter-argument, that they somehow would need to cease operations in the state and deprive customers of their service. They wouldn't, they can operate just fine as a software provider, they just don't get to eat the entire value chain. (which arguably apart from taking care of the employee issue also makes some sense from a competition standpoint).
This whole thing is about lawyers and the taxi industry. It’s bullshit.
Uber is far from perfect, but let’s make sure we raise every point when arguing about it.
I also doubt that the law forces companies to have a work schedule for their employees. From what I understand it just says that benefits are provided if employee works for more than certain amount of hours.
So to me it seems like it's all about exploiting their drivers (treating drivers like employees without providing advantages that employees have)
The reason is because ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than letting employees choose their own schedule.
Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.
The thing is that Uber et al prefers if there is no schedule and law actually doesn't stand in the way of that.
How? As far as I understand, this is literally impossible with AB5, unless they get an exemption like all the other contractor-based industries.
Firstly, is that backed up by data? Secondly, what is their reason for not wanting to be employees? Is it something about immigration law, exploitative employers or truly something about freedom?
https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/
Why is it so hard to believe drivers enjoy their freedom? They get to control their schedule. Turn the app on and off. Quit after two rides or drive for ten hours because the hits keep coming.
This is not exploitation. There’s a small number of drivers taking advantage of free lawyers backed by the taxi industry.
But more than anything. If you don’t like ride share don’t drive for ride share. Find a different job. Who said anyone has a right to demand a job to be created their way? Ride share works as it is. If you want a full-time with benefits go get a trucking job. There are a ton of those.
Disclosure. I am not in the United States, I am no expert. But the over-representation of some groups may be what is wrong with that data. It could be that those people that were missed by the survey feel more exploited?
Across the pond in the UK it is not drivers welfare that is driving me to think they should be employees, but tax. In the UK being employed means your boss pays national insurance (a kind of tax). Secondly VAT (sales tax) is only charged by entities with sales over £85k ie not one driver on their own (making them much cheaper). However if they were employees the sales would be by Uber and subject to 20%VAT. HMRC finally got around to demanding this from Uber this week.
https://goodlawproject.org/update/hmrc-to-collect-1-5bn-uber...
Gig economy workers have the freest movement of labor possible. If they get a better job tomorrow, they just take it...they don't even have to tell Uber. That's the whole point of the "gig" in Gig Economy.