>. Uber drivers are not commodified. There is in fact a difference between drivers, both known in advance (rating) and during/after the actual trip. I have had very pleasant experiences with some drivers, and very unpleasant experiences with others. The pleasant drivers I tipped extra and gave high ratings. The unpleasant ones I did the opposite.
This rating is given by Uber only. It is a single number, with nothing else. This is literal commodification, the exact same way that housing or vegetables are com modified following a grade or a rating. When drivers will be able to market themselves and make a case for themselves it will be something else. A synthetic, numerical rating is literally a hallmark of commodification.
>2. I am not perpetuating a straw man that "all collective bargaining is price-fixing". I am arguing that in this particular case, this is the bad one (price fixing), not the good one (collective bargaining). This is because the drivers (not Uber) have monopoly power in the market. The disagreement is stemming from the fact that you believe that any action taken by "labor" cannot be price-fixing, which I disagree with.
I've written about a dozen times. All collective bargaining is price fixing. Your argument that I am saying that it's not or that I am applying an inconsistent standard is literally a strawman.
>3. "This is ridiculous on its face." It is not ridiculous. This is called supply-and-demand and it actually works quite well for pricing things. If Uber "sets" the price too high, riders will not use the service. If they "set" the price too low, drivers will not want to participate and then you don't have a market. Again, the price is "set" at whatever value riders are willing to pay and drivers are willing to accept. Anything else and the system fundamentally doesn't work.
It is indeed ridiculous. It isn't the drivers negotiating with the riders, it is Uber negotiating with the riders. This is absolutely crucial. The driver has only the option to refuse work. This is, quite literally, how being an employee works. You have no input over the price of the good, you can only refuse or accept the job at the price and in a perfect frictionless vacuum your refusal or acceptance is perfectly mirrored in the end price. Which it isn't in practice for endless reasons, and certainly not in Uber where the margin Uber takes is a secret that no one knows and that varies instantly.
>a. you choose which rides you want. you are not forced to take certain rides ("make a certain app").
If you are an employee, you also aren't forced to make a certain app. You can refuse and either be assigned something else (that you didn't decide), or be fired. If you were a developer on Steam for example, you would be able to make any software, in any way you like, and charge exactly how much you like. All things you can't do on Uber. The right of refusal is also key to being an employee. Contractors, in general, have more than the right of refusal - they decide how the job is done.
>drivers can set prices
Only in California, in a transparent attempt to skirt the letter of the law, and only very, very indirectly through a multiplier.
>the Uber cut is not obscure (pretty sure it's always been 30%). The time this doesn't apply is when Uber gives both counterparties a great deal by paying the driver more and charging the rider less and using VC money to split the difference.
Not always! Uber claims that their cut is around 25-30%. You have to trust them, and independent analysis shows that the cut can exceed 50% in some cases : https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/uber-and-lyfts-c.... In any case, the algorithm used to calculate the fare charged to the rider and credited to the driver is different, so there can never be a fixed cut. It is obscure, and you can never know.
>my option with Stripe is "sell my app using them or not", ditto for Steam. Can I sell it without them? Sure. Just like a driver can sell private car-for-hire services without Uber.
On Stripe, you can sell almost anything. On Steam, you can sell any software at all. On Uber, you can only do the specific trip that Uber wants you to do at the price that Uber decided to offer you, and only in the specific route that is calculated, only in the specific allowed vehicles.
>You might want to break it to a number of companies that some of their core businesses don't actually exist because they came out of acquisitions. Regardless, that wasn't my point. Investors invested in a ride-sharing app. Uber makes money because they have an app. Without the app (but 1000s of drivers) they would not have a business. They would literally be a cab company. But actually they wouldn't be because they don't have any medallions, which you need if you're not connecting riders directly to drivers with... your app. The core business is definitely the app. That's how Lyft can also exist in the same space with the same drivers. Because their business is in making an app that enables a marketplace for ride-sharing, just like Uber. But it's a different app. But the same drivers. Given your assertions, I guess they're pretty lucky to exist in an industry where you could have 100 competing ride-sharing apps, but because "the drivers are their core business", they will all do just fine because they all have drivers!
Does Uber not have a contractual relationship with Uber drivers in which they must complete a ride? Does Uber not spend the vast majority of their revenue in this contractual relationship? Then it is core to their business. If Uber's job was only to connect riders to drivers, then the contractual obligation would be between drivers and riders, and not between drivers and Uber. This is as absurd as claiming that the core business of Microsoft is to connect users of operating systems with programmers. It isn't, it's to sell software, because the engineers have an obligation towards Microsoft.
>If I hire a guy to mow my lawn, I can stipulate that he uses an electric mower. Maybe this is because I care about the environment, don't like gas fumes, or want to look fancy in front of my neighbors. My reasons are my own and he is still an independent contractor.
If you hire a guy to mow your lawn, tell him exactly how to do it, specify the equipment with which you do so, and if he has no lawn-mowing practice, then yes he is your employee. Furthermore, you seem to be missing the fact that Uber drivers are contractors of Uber, not contractors to the riders.