Current Events > Taxi drivers to get good news in California? Uber, Lyft about to call quits

(+) Yeah! (+)

HiddenRoar posted...

Well, I'm not picking a fight with Idaho or Ohio, am I?

Gee I wonder why
---

There is absolutely no way ride sharing is ending in California. No fucking way. If some how Lyft and Uber were to shut down (which they wont lol), another ride sharing company will quickly pop up to replace them.

So many people use Lyft and Uber, the demand is immense. Theres no way this modern mode of travel will vanish now. If you think Taxis and busses will be it youre flipping delusional.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

dp

Broseph_Stalin posted...

rofl
---

Prop 22 good or bad?
---

Kingbuffet posted...

Good. Taxi men got fucked by these phony companies

they deserve it

they go around burning cars threatening and attacking people

---

BigB0ss13 posted...

People rely on paying $10-35 every ride for work? Might as well buy a used car that has great MPG then. That's expensive af but everyone thinking I'm crazy and saying that is cheap and cheaper than taxi.

It's so weird in all this that there has never been any kind of honest attempt to make taxis more affordable or at all reinvent how things work. It's instead just trying to kill the other service so they can continue as-is.

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I do think it is unfair that you can work full time for Uber and Lyft and get nothing for it in terms of benefits.

You were never meant to do this full time.

---

Well, Uber/Lyft definitely aren't gonna change everything nationwide just to conform to Cali.

---

Capital is striking because Uber and Lyft have based their entire business model on underpaying their workers and exploiting the savings to be cheaper and more available than traditional taxis.
And even with all that on their side, they literally cant actually make money. Seems like a completely unworkable business model that is being artificially sustained by endless capital investment.

Youre not even required to do it as a part time schedule. Its completely up to you. You can drive someone one day to make a few bucks, and maybe two months later you decide to give another person a ride.

Its not at all like the taxi service. And these lawsuits are probably by former taxi drivers who quit and took up Uber & Lfyt and then found out that theyre not getting any benefits that they would get from a regular employer.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

You were never meant to do this full time.

Like where do people get this idea? It seems like an incredibly artificial notion.


---

The big mistake these companies made was thinking they could do business without giving the government a cut. Taxi drivers figured out a long time ago that you pay to play.

Honestly, this is another good reason to segregate benefits from jobs

---

If Uber and Lyft stops doing business in California then another company will come in, comply with the rules then get all of Uber and Lyft's business.

BigB0ss13 posted...

If Uber and Lyft stops doing business in California then another company will come in, comply with the rules then get all of Uber and Lyft's business.

Customers will have to pay more, because I don't see how they would be able to replicate the existing ride-share model while being both profitable enough to stay afloat and while being able to pay for employee benefits.

BigB0ss13 posted...

If Uber and Lyft stops doing business in California then another company will come in, comply with the rules then get all of Uber and Lyft's business.

The business will just go back to the taxi companies.

---

Why did driveshare get targeted, but not food delivery drivers?
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Why did driveshare get targeted, but not food delivery drivers?

Because this has been a fight between the drivershare and taxi industry. Taxi companies werent losing business over food delivery so that is not on their radar.

---

eston posted...

So basically their business model doesn't work unless they can exploit their workforce

You just described 100% of all businesses.

---

On a more serious note, every single real taxi service I've ever used has been fucking awful and just as expensive, if not more expensive than Uber.

I don't feel particularly obligated to pick up a torch for these services, especially since it's not like they're run with pristine ethics to begin with.

---

Taxi is like $30-$40 to go to the mall. Uber is like $12-$14. Lyft $10
---

Postmates, Grubhub, Doordash OKAY
Uber, Lyft BAD!
---

People wouldn't currently be driving Uber if they weren't making money.
---

COVxy posted...

You just described 100% of all businesses.

This is absolutely true, but I'm sure you agree that there are various degrees of exploitation. Like, workers rights is a cause that's been around for a long time and gig jobs are a step back in history

---

Bio1590 posted...

Since when has that ever been included in the definition of an employee?

There are definitions, and what that poster listed falls into that. I'm self-employed/independent. I'm not an employee to the company I work for, the same way these uber/lyft guys aren't employees to theirs -- and trust me, it's better that way for everyone. These politicians just want to tax everyone, which is what it all comes down to.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

The big mistake these companies made was thinking they could do business without giving the government a cut. Taxi drivers figured out a long time ago that you pay to play.

^ He understands lol.

---

scar the 1 posted...

This is absolutely true, but I'm sure you agree that there are various degrees of exploitation. Like, workers rights is a cause that's been around for a long time and gig jobs are a step back in history

Yes, but I worry, as I alluded to in the following post, that people are confusing this for a fight for worker rights, when it's really a fight of one exploitative industry fighting to pull back their market share from another.

And then you think about the consumer side of things and you're really fucking people over.

---

COVxy posted...

Yes, but I worry, as I alluded to in the following post, that people are confusing this as for fight for worker rights, when it's really a fight of one exploitative industry fighting to pull back their market share from another.

And then you think about the consumer side of things and you're really fucking people over.

True. There's not really a good solution here. Or rather, the "good" solution imo would be investment in public transportation such that it's a viable option for as many as possible. But that's quite unrealistic in current US, isn't it

---

If they want the benefits of being employee's than why not get a job at a taxi company and drive for them?

---

TheApexPredator posted...

If they want the benefits of being employee's than why not get a job at a taxi company and drive for them?

One active post. Nice!

---

TheApexPredator posted...

If they want the benefits of being employee's than why not get a job at a taxi company and drive for them?

Are there plentiful full time positions open at taxi companies?

TheApexPredator posted...

If they want the benefits of being employee's than why not get a job at a taxi company and drive for them?

I don't think many of these people in here have ever been independent or contract labor, so they just don't understand. It has its negatives, but it's overall better than being employed to someone else and being overseen by some crappy boss. That's why these drivers aren't going to taxi companies. It's why I don't leave my company. Yeah, I have 0 benefits... but the freedom to do what I want and by my own boss is the ultimate benefit.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/uber-and-lyft-could-shut-down-in-california-this-week-it-may-not-help-their-cause/ar-BB181Fzs

---

scar the 1 posted...

There's not really a good solution here.

There is, stop outlawing freelance work people willingly choose to do. None of them asked for this law.

For people who still don't get it, most cities have extensive regulations and permit requirements for Taxi services. Meaning the government gets a bribe and in return they restrict the competition. It's called occupational licensing and it's basically a mob racket:

roughly 5 percent of workers were licensed in the 1950s, compared to about one quarter of workers today. Importantly, this increase in licensing is for the most part not a consequence of the swelling service sector, replete with licensed physicians, lawyers, and teachers. Rather, the bulk of growth in licensing has resulted from the extension of licensing to previously unlicensed occupations. the economic costs stemming from licensing are large: by one estimate, licensing is associated with 2.8 million fewer jobs. Second, much of the impetus for licensing has come from parties with a financial interest in excluding others from their field and keeping prices high.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-future-of-occupational-licensing-reform/

Broseph_Stalin posted...

There is, stop outlawing freelance work people willingly choose to do. None of them asked for this law.

For people who still don't get it, most cities have extensive regulations and permit requirements for Taxi services. Meaning the government gets a bribe and in return they restrict the competition. It's called occupational licensing and it's basically a mob racket:

Yes. Let customers decide. Let adults decide if they want to do the work or not.


---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's called occupational licensing and it's basically a mob racket:

See also
http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/licensetowork1.pdf

Can uber/lyft pay the shittiest wages(basically only minimum wage with no raise), offer the worst insurance and the drivers have to contribute the maximum amount allowed towards insurance, take a HUGE cut of the fares, etc. to cut down on costs?

BigB0ss13 posted...

Can uber/lyft pay the shittiest wages(basically only minimum wage with no raise), offer the worst insurance and the drivers have to contribute the maximum amount allowed towards insurance, take a HUGE cut of the fares, etc. to cut down on costs?

Probably, but limiting hours to just under the benefits threshold would be far simpler.
Uber has never been profitable anyway, and Lyft isn't much better, so the only real danger in compliance is scaring off the venture-capital gravy train.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/uber-and-lyft-competitors-prepare-to-grab-market-share-in-california.html

Alto, a Texas-based rideshare service, had planned to expand to California by early 2021. CEO Will Coleman said Alto now hopes to be there no later than early November.
Alto has had an employee-based driver model since its inception, lowering the regulatory hurdles it will have to jump to get set up in California. Coleman said the model allows Alto to better control the rider experience, which is especially important for cleaning procedures related to Covid-19.
The reality is that having W-2 workers is actually significantly more innovative than [having] contractors in the transportation space, Coleman said, noting that most taxi drivers have traditionally been independent. Fundamentally what we can control is actually the most important part of our business, which is supply. The challenge that Uber and Lyft have with independent contractors is that they have zero control over their supply.
Coleman said Uber and Lyfts extra supply benefits consumers through low prices, but it drives down pay for workers and leads to an excess of cars on the roads. At Alto, rather than incentivize drivers to go to less-populated places with surge pricing, the company forecasts demand to optimize its fleet. Coleman acknowledged that means drivers are slower to arrive than Uber and Lyft, but said Alto has prioritized other parts of the experience.
Were never going to be as quick as Uber or Lyft, Coleman said. In many central business districts you might be able to get an Uber or Lyft in literally seconds if not a minute or two. We dont optimize for that. We tell our customers, look, expect us to be there in 10 minutes no matter what. And we deliver on that promise like 99% of the time.

[...]

If Uber and Lyft lose their court battle and fail to gain voter support for their ballot measure, the services will look very different once they return to California.
Both companies have said theyd likely have to limit drivers to a set number of hours and may prioritize hiring full-time workers, leaving many part-time drivers without work.
Riders will most likely see more expensive rides that reflect the costs Uber and Lyft must absorb to pay additional benefits to their drivers. Cars may take longer to get to their pick-up locations without as many drivers on the road, and potentially without the incentive of surge pricing to bring them to under-served locations.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ubers-and-lyfts-alternatives-if-they-shut-down-their-ride-hailing-businesses-11597841334

Good news though, Uber Eats will still be operating.

Lyft has now pulled out of California. Enjoy your expensive taxis if they even bother to show up.
---

eston posted...

So basically their business model doesn't work unless they can exploit their workforce

---

voldothegr8 posted...

Lyft has now pulled out of California. Enjoy your expensive taxis if they even bother to show up.

California Unemployment Office about to see thousands of new claims lol

https://abc7.com/business/appeals-court-allows-lyft-and-uber-to-continue-operations-in-ca/6379664/

we good.

also, ab5 is fucking stupid

---

Voting doesn't happen until November, Does it mean people have to wait until after the election to be able to use Uber/Lyft? Lyft already shutting down on August 20, 11:59pm
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Voting doesn't happen until November, Does it mean people have to wait until after the election to be able to use Uber/Lyft? Lyft already shutting down on August 20, 11:59pm

No. Lyft and Uber can continue business.

---

Taxis are literally the worst thing though.

---