51–60 of 303 posts
Since they are all independent contractors, they are "rivals" in the same industry, so with all of them cooperating to increase fares for their benefit (and based on my understanding of the law), they are technically colluding.
I don't quite understand this: "The lot fills with 120 to 150 drivers sometimes for hours, waiting for the busy evening rush. " Are they saying drivers site and wait for hours to do this?
Also, leaving the car turned off and waiting in a lucrative parking lot saves gas, wear and tear on the car, and drastically decreases the opportunities to get into an accident. All in all, it is not a bad plan. Taxi drivers have done this for years (which is, ironically, probably one of reasons Uber got started in the first place -- in SF it was almost impossible to get a cab, because so many cabbies just wanted to get airport fares).
I can think of a ton of technical ways Uber and Lyft can combat this. And they probably will. And they'll be short term happy and long term foolish. Because they're treating the symptoms, not the cause.
I dont see how Lyft gets off calling this fraudulent. Seems to me it's the system working as intended, and as it should. Drivers dont want to drive for under a certain value, so they simply inform the app who adjusts the value to fulfill demand. Seems like its what you want to happen.
The workers are "defrauding" Capital out of greater-than-substance wages. It's bullshit, and they'll try to re-frame in in terms of customers, but that's essentially their view.
Seems like a small software tweak is all it would take to obliterate this tactic, like updating surge pricing every time a driver logged in.
News flash: if you go out of your way to classify your entire workforce as contractors, you don't get to decide when they work or not. It turns out this has consequences on both sides. If Lyft wants to decide when their drivers are working, there's a process for this: 1) Hire employees 2) Give them a schedule 3) Pay them hourly plus mileage
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if the number is accurate but I do know how amazingly stubborn humans can be in finding a new job. I've had people refuse to quit a job that they groan about every day when I've offered them almost double the salary to work elsewhere with far better terms. Humans are risk averse and those who live paycheck to paycheck are especially so. It defies logic until you consider that their fear of the unknown +…
Maybe that’s all true, but it doesn’t really make sense for Uber/Lyft. They could go back to their job driving whenever they wanted.
I dont see how Lyft gets off calling this fraudulent. Seems to me it's the system working as intended, and as it should. Drivers dont want to drive for under a certain value, so they simply inform the app who adjusts the value to fulfill demand. Seems like its what you want to happen.
And it only works as long as all of the drivers in an area agree: one or two drivers who don't join the scheme, and it doesn't work.
That's much easier to organize at an airport than elsewhere, since all the drivers are required to gather together in an airport waiting area.
Contractors get to set rates, employees don't. So you can't say they're contractors AND accuse them of committing fraud when they try to set their own rates.
Now if only someone would develop an app that does this for entire cities. The app could be their version of a union.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I agree with what I'm about to say, but the drivers need to be careful, because they might run afoul of collusion. Since they are all independent contractors, they are "rivals" in the same industry, so with all of them cooperating to increase fares for their benefit (and based on my understanding of the law), they are technically colluding.