Tech companies have tried the same tactic but there was a crackdown a few years ago. So in some states, there is a maximum amount of time that you can work for a tech company as a consultant before they are forced to recognize you as a full time employee and provide the benefits that go with that. I don't remember all the details but I think they cracked down on Microsoft a few years ago.

Companies are pushing this independent contractor BS in every industry they can.  I once had to sign a contract that said "regardless of state law, you agree with us that you are a contractor."  FYI it doesn't work like that, but states have been lax in enforcement.  Good to see they're starting to pick up the pace.

Independent contractor status wouldn't be so bad if we had a first-world healthcare coverage system.

I may be mistaken with UPS. I know their freight drivers are independent contractors, but their actual delivery drivers may be employees. FedEx definitely has almost all independent contractors delivering.

 

Are you sure about this?  I worked for Fedex several years in college and dont remember anything about contractors working at the station.  The Custom Critical guys (when you see those vans or 24' trucks with sleepers out on the highway), they are indies.  But I think the run of the mill Fedex drivers are all on payroll. 

There are over 2,000 FedEx drivers in California alone who have been labeled as independent contractors. They are the run of the mill delivery driver.

I think the UPS people were encouraging the IRS to go after FedEx to try and even the playing field

The potential of Uber/Lyft technology is so valuable to the public good that the federal government should simply buy them out and set it all up as a public service.  That way the traditional cab companies can stay in business but there can be people outside of the medallion system providing on-demand GPS-based cashless ridesharing and delivery services in a way that respects the driver's right to a livable wage (and compensation for miles drive) while at the same time the public isn't price-gouged during times of high demand (especially weather crisis, etc.). 

The potential of Uber/Lyft technology is so valuable to the public good that the federal government should simply buy them out and set it all up as a public service.  That way the traditional cab companies can stay in business but there can be people outside of the medallion system providing on-demand GPS-based cashless ridesharing and delivery services in a way that respects the driver's right to a livable wage (and compensation for miles drive) while at the same time the public isn't price-gouged during times of high demand (especially weather crisis, etc.).

 

At a valuation of $18B+ for Uber alone, that would be a heck of a buyout even without a normal buyer's premium.  Also, the industry is dynamic enough that simply putting everything in the public domain and allowing it to run on government servers wouldn't necessarily preserve the value for very long, because the pace of new innovations and upgrades would basically halt and there are still new features that could be added.  Also, the government would possibly then be on the hook for either the surge pricing, or the lottery system that would result from ending surge pricing (because assuming that a 7x surge is sometimes needed to get enough drivers to cover a spike in demand, then anything less than that will result in some people simply getting no service at all).

 

The market will sort this out eventually, and almost certainly faster than the government would.  If Uber simply doesn't put enough money on the table for its drivers, whether cash up front or benefits, then it's going to lose drivers and lose business.  Its clever recruiting sprees can only get it so far.

Government should not be in the for profit business Jake.

The market will sort this out eventually, and almost certainly faster than the government would.  If Uber simply doesn't put enough money on the table for its drivers, whether cash up front or benefits, then it's going to lose drivers and lose business.  Its clever recruiting sprees can only get it so far.

 

Uber will get drivers as long as people are desperate for cash, i.e. forever.  If there was some sort of "market competition" for the labor, why would we be having this independent contractor discussion?  There would be a bidding war between the services, driving up wages and benefits.  That ain't happening.  At all.  Instead, they're wiping out competition from professional cabbies using Wal-Mart's playbook.  It's a rocketship to the bottom. 

 

On the flipside, Uber is worth a ton of money.  Just like Wal-Mart.

 

 

I wasn't aware that Wal-Mart's model was more hygienic facilities than their competition and a convenient, mobile-centric business model linked to a physical presence dominated by independent contractors.

 

The competition element is almost irrelevant to the employee/contractor decision.  It's not necessarily the case at all that the more in-demand a given skill is, the more likely people possessing that skill will want to be employees rather than independent contractors.  That said, if the company really can find people willing to drive for peanuts in perpetuity, then that's part of how the market value of a given service gets revealed.  There's nothing magical about Uber's model that makes transportation for hire suddenly exponentially more valuable.

Once again, and I've posted this many times on here, why don't the taxi drivers just get in the game?  There are a ton of markets offering Uber Taxi as an option when you search for a ride (Toronto and Honolulu come to mind).  Make it just a touch cheaper than UberX can compete on service.  Technology works for everyone.  Win win! 

It's not magic.  It's just that Uber's established competition is required to maintain commercial licensure and insurance, while the company takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong.  Those added costs protect the consumer as well as the worker.  But in this brave new world of ours:

 

Step 1) Screw them

 

Step 2) Profit

 

So no, definitely not magic.   

But the customer doesn't care about the business model. They don't care who owns the car or whether the driver is an independent contractor or a full-time employee. All they care about is the convenience of the app - being able to request a car, watch it drive to you, and automatically handling payment via the app at the end of the ride. If the taxi industry came out with that before Uber, they would be in great shape right now.

But the customer doesn't care about the business model. They don't care who owns the car or whether the driver is an independent contractor or a full-time employee. All they care about is the convenience of the app - being able to request a car, watch it drive to you, and automatically handling payment via the app at the end of the ride. If the taxi industry came out with that before Uber, they would be in great shape right now.

 

And they can do this.  ^^see above.  Uber will let Taxi drivers in, though I'm not sure of the politics it takes to get them there.

It's not magic.  It's just that Uber's established competition is required to maintain commercial licensure and insurance, while the company takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong.  Those added costs protect the consumer as well as the worker.  But in this brave new world of ours:

 

Step 1) Screw them

 

Step 2) Profit

 

So no, definitely not magic.   

 

I'm under the impression that Uber does carry insurance for its drivers, in amounts similar to if not greater than taxi companies do for their drivers.

But the customer doesn't care about the business model. They don't care who owns the car or whether the driver is an independent contractor or a full-time employee. All they care about is the convenience of the app - being able to request a car, watch it drive to you, and automatically handling payment via the app at the end of the ride. If the taxi industry came out with that before Uber, they would be in great shape right now.

 

Absolutely.  If it were a level playing field, I'd say Uber deserves to clean up because their app is such a welcome advance.  But there's more to it, people also love the price difference and most don't seem to realize the degree of tradeoff.  Anyone who doesn't care about the business model (and what it means) has no one to blame but themselves if they get burnt. 

Regarding Uber and Taxis, some pretty cool info and graphics here: 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city-2014-10

I am now a fan of Uber.  The system worked flawlessly.  It was pretty cool to actually see how far away the car was before pickup.  Absolutely going to use this in the future!!!

 

Seeing the driver approach on your phone is a huge advantage over the old way of doing things, yet surprisingly few people pay attention.  I have to call at least half of riders to tell them to come out.  It wastes a huge amount of time. 

 

Before cell phones people used to wait by their doors looking for the pizza guy.  Cabs were the same way until Uber.  Now with cell phones people are deep in their homes absorbed in some inane activity and forget to turn on their phones both for pizza delivery and when they're getting picked up. 

 

There are a lot of people going out who "aren't ready" 15 minutes after making the ride request.  Then when people are in a bar and you call them they'll say "We're finishing up our last drink we'll be right out!".  Five minutes later still no sign of them.  With Uber a driver can cancel the ride and you are charged $5 if you don't come out after they have called you. 

 

 

 

 

 

That is a benefit of Uber when you are waiting for it at your home. In the city, it the cabs have a benefit by being able to hail one on the side of the street easier. There are benefits and drawbacks to each.

 

That is a benefit of Uber when you are waiting for it at your home. In the city, it the cabs have a benefit by being able to hail one on the side of the street easier. There are benefits and drawbacks to each.

 

 

And yet another benefit, you can count on one hand the number of cities in North America where taxis are readily available to hail on the street at any given moment....  :wink:

Government should not be in the for profit business Jake.

 

Nobody's understanding that this technology has the ability to massively improve public transportation and therefore increase mobility and reduce costs for the poor and middle class.  For example the Uber Pool and Lyft Line services could be easily integrated with existing bus and rail public transportation if it was all under the same administrative umbrella.  By that it could both shuttle employees to and from existing transit services or operate vanpools that have no relationship with existing transit services...seamlessly. 

 

People are being selfish and superficial when they look at this just as a way to avoid a DUI or a way to get to the airport from the suburbs or a way to get fancy groceries delivered to their fancy condo. 

Government should not be in the for profit business Jake.

 

Right, government does the unprofitable stuff that is in the public good.  Why must the poor and middle class be at the mercy of our current system (car ownership or you're a bum on the bus) which profits exist at every stage of the process (car, car dealer, loan, fuel, insurance, etc.) to simply get to work or to a medical appointment or to some other essential activity? 

Uber just announced a new feature for drivers -- starting today Uber will enable drivers to accept their next ride request while transporting a passenger.  They did not say how close you have to be to the drop-off location, but I assume that it would be when the program assumes that you are within 2-3 minutes of the drop off.  This is a really big deal since it will enable you to leave a drop-off location and choose the correct way to leave a subdivision, parking lot, or whatever.  Right now you waste a lot of time after dropping off a passenger trying to find a good place to park, and it's easy to get on the highway the wrong direction only to have a ride request that requires a turnaround that can take five or more minutes. 

But aren't drivers not allowed to use the app while driving?

This is a feature of the driver mode of the app, which exists as a completely separate app on your phone (unlike Lyft, where the same app is used by drivers and passengers).  An Uber driver can request himself through the Uber app but it's impossible with Lyft unless you have two phones. 

 

The way it works right now, a driver is blocked out of accepting other ride requests until they have completed a ride, including the rating at the end.  In fact a driver has no way of knowing if a surge has started or ended until they're out of the trip they are giving. 

 

This change is a big one...it'll make a big difference in the overall efficiency of the system during both busy and slow times.  For example, right now you could drop someone off 1 minute after someone on their block requests a ride.  But instead of you simply rounding the block and picking them up 1 minute later, another car comes from 10 minutes away.  So now you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs while some other guy is driving from 3-4 miles away. 

I am down in Ft. Lauderdale for work this week. Uber has just decided to leave Broward County due to new regulations they put in place for ridesharing services. There are a lot of people in the office that use Uber frequently and are quite upset.

Aaahhh thank god!!!  I was really getting worried that this fantastic service would continue to thrive due to its unrivaled superiority.  Never too late to bring in government at the behest of established industries to burden it into obscurity!

 

Cleveland officials want to regulate Uber, other ride-sharing services

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland officials want to force ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft to operate in the city under the same rules and regulation as taxicabs.

 

Dedrick Stephens, the city's assessments and licenses commissioner, made the announcement Wednesday in a public meeting with taxicab drivers and company owners.

 

Stephens' office will push to amend the city ordinance that regulates taxicabs to include ride-sharing services that have become increasingly popular and contentious.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/cleveland_officials_want_to_re.html#incart_m-rpt-1

God forbid officials ever focus on the high prices of taxis, the incessant babbling of driver' telephone conversations, the bullshit broken credit card machines' excuses, the extreme and dangerous driving of many drivers, the filth and smells of many vehicles, the purposefully erroneous, costly routes drivers take, the unwillingness to drive to the suburbs,  etc. No, let's focus on Uber and Lyft.

 

Carpool taxes coming up next!

 

These are the same assholes who are moaning about hotel taxes for people who rent out an extra bed or couch sporadically.

 

Stifling innovation and a few extra dollars in the name of public safety and fairness is all they know.

 

America's race to the bottom right here.

 

The All-Star Game was a total bust for rideshare in Cincinnati.  Uber spent six weeks recruiting new drivers via a relentless radio campaign on all local stations.  So Uber hyped the thing up to its own now swollen ranks of drivers for a week so that all 500~ drivers were out there driving both Monday and Tuesday night.  The result?  Hardly any surge at all and few drivers grossed more than $100.  I saw it briefly surge to 2.7X but it was mostly under 2X. 

 

Part of the problem was the fact that the All-Star Game itself is simply not the major event that it was touted to be.  There was nobody in any of the bars outside of The Banks.  Nobody in Mt. Adams, nobody in OTR like a typical Friday, Saturday, or even Thursday night. 

 

As recently as six weeks ago I saw a 7X surge in Cincinnati, with 4X and 5X surges on Friday and Saturday night commonplace.  I'm worried that it will take months for most of these new drivers to quit, meaning we won't be back to the lucrative surges for some time. 

As a consumer, that's awesome.

This hyper free market idealism is a bit funny to watch.  Uber & Lyft are great companies.  That doesn't mean some light, reasonable regulations do anything other than protect the public. 

 

Cincinnati passed regulation for Uber & Lyft last year.  Both programs have expanded, everything is great. 

As a consumer, that's awesome.

 

No it's not.  Uber has chased off anyone who can do math and so what you're left with is all the scumbag cab drivers of old in LA and other cities where they dropped the rates and did the ridiculous bottom-of-the-barrel driver recruitment before Cincinnati.  Uber is exploiting immigrants with their automobile purchase program that is sucking them into 20% interest rates on new cars that they have to drive endlessly to make payments on.  If they wreck the car and can't drive while it's being repaired and can't make the payment then the vehicle is repo'd. 

 

In short, Uber has become a predatory company that is taking advantage of clientele that just plain doesn't care that the drivers are being exploited. 

I've switched Almost exclusively to Lyft.

After the bust of the All-Star festivities, Saturday night appeared to be one of the biggest nights for surge pricing in Uber's time in Cincinnati.  Most of the city was at 4x-5x surge pricing for about 3 hours.  The huge storm compounded things, of course, but somehow Uber's regional manager who sends out the text messages encouraging people to drive completely missed that there was a sold-out concert at Paul Brown Stadium that would let out at the same time as the Reds-Indians game.  And as luck would have it, let out right before a storm dropped 2" of rain in 45 minutes! 

 

A lot of the complaining about Uber comes from Southern California drivers and their lawyers...part of the reason why the LA-area drivers are making such little money is actually because they almost never have snow or weather events that both discourage drivers and increase rider demand, triggering day-long surges.  There were a few snowy days this past winter where I made $300 in about 4 hours but in each case had to quit driving to go to another job or some sort of social event.  I think that there have been a few times when a Cincinnati driver could have flirted with making $1,000 on a very long 10-15 hour day (I have grossed $450 twice).  But for the most part I assume that a full-time Uber driver in Ohio is grossing about $200 on an ordinary day where surges barely happen, and so barely netting $100 per day. 

 

 

This is kind of a hybrid (no pun intended) topic and I kind of wish I could cross-post it into the RNC thread (the convention thread, not the candidates one), but I think that this is larger than just one event:

 

I was talking a friend here in Akron a couple of days ago who works as an Uber driver.  He said that he actually isn't allowed to "sign on" in Cleveland and accept rides there even when there is a near-certainty of high demand (surge pricing and all the rest), like when the RNC comes to town.  Other drivers: Is there a technological reason for this?  Is it just a business decision?  It seems to go against Uber's rather libertarian corporate philosophy and I'm not sure that I see much of a convincing technological reason why this couldn't be done.  I could understand why individual drivers already based in Cleveland might not want additional drivers coming in to help in periods of high demand, because they'd rather just get the surge pricing that might be abated with a higher supply of drivers, but the company itself ought to be at least neutral on the subject and, like I said, its corporate philosophy has generally been pretty open.

 

Also, he said that if he actually drove someone from Akron to Cleveland, then he would be allowed to stay and accept rides in Cleveland for the rest of the night after that.  That seems like an odd compromise (and further argument against there being any kind of technological limitation on simply letting drivers from Akron decide to work in Cleveland when they see more opportunities up there).

Uber does not let you drive in cities other than the one you are registered in, but Lyft does.  I screen shotted the Uber error message one time but I'm at work so I can't upload it.  But I did accept a Lyft ride request from my brother in Nashville.  I canceled the ride, so I'm not sure if Lyft would have yelled at me for actually taking the ride. 

 

I'm not sure about Lyft, but Uber automatically ends rides after four hours.  I've never had a ride anywhere close to that but I have seen them on the Uber driver forums and seen that people can't figure out how to get paid for the hours that they drove someone outside of the app's purview. 

This is kind of a hybrid (no pun intended) topic and I kind of wish I could cross-post it into the RNC thread (the convention thread, not the candidates one), but I think that this is larger than just one event:

 

I was talking a friend here in Akron a couple of days ago who works as an Uber driver.  He said that he actually isn't allowed to "sign on" in Cleveland and accept rides there even when there is a near-certainty of high demand (surge pricing and all the rest), like when the RNC comes to town.  Other drivers: Is there a technological reason for this?  Is it just a business decision?  It seems to go against Uber's rather libertarian corporate philosophy and I'm not sure that I see much of a convincing technological reason why this couldn't be done.  I could understand why individual drivers already based in Cleveland might not want additional drivers coming in to help in periods of high demand, because they'd rather just get the surge pricing that might be abated with a higher supply of drivers, but the company itself ought to be at least neutral on the subject and, like I said, its corporate philosophy has generally been pretty open.

 

Also, he said that if he actually drove someone from Akron to Cleveland, then he would be allowed to stay and accept rides in Cleveland for the rest of the night after that.  That seems like an odd compromise (and further argument against there being any kind of technological limitation on simply letting drivers from Akron decide to work in Cleveland when they see more opportunities up there).

 

Seems like if the surge money is right, would be wise to have a friend book a fake trip from Akron to Cleveland.

This study was funded but Uber, so take it with a grain of salt, but...

 

 

Study: Uber Reduces Drunk Driving Deaths

 

The entry of Uber X — driving services offered by people using private vehicles — into a new city decreased drunk driving deaths by an average of 3.6 percent, according to the study, funded by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Uber and carried out by researchers at Temple University. The difference took about nine months to take effect, they found.

Personal Observation: Uber Increases My Bar Tab

So basically Uber increases bar tabs (good for local businesses!) and decreases drunk driving (good for everyone not dumb enough to drive drunk!). Sounds like a positive piece of transportation infrastructure to have.

 

I used Uber for the first time in awhile the other weekend. I was brought, after much persuasion, to The Dock in Cincy and lasted all of 5 minutes before I left and got an Uber home. It's times like that that make me glad it exists. Cabs in the past had said they don't want to pick people up there and the nearest Red Bike station wasn't doing it for me (it was like 2 in the morning and I had no desire to be awake let alone walk to the nearest station and ride a bike back home). Best $6.97 ever spent.

I have heard much speculation about how the resurgence of cities can be partially attributed to stricter drunk driving laws and enforcement. I've never seen a full-blown study on it, but it makes too much sense to not be true. The Uber study make sense as well, and can also be extended to cities that make public transportation a priority. If you live in a city with great transit, you don't think twice about taking transit to go out drinking. Uber just gives more people that option where transit is lacking.

So basically Uber increases bar tabs (good for local businesses!) and decreases drunk driving (good for everyone not dumb enough to drive drunk!). Sounds like a positive piece of transportation infrastructure to have.

 

I used Uber for the first time in awhile the other weekend. I was brought, after much persuasion, to The Dock in Cincy and lasted all of 5 minutes before I left and got an Uber home. It's times like that that make me glad it exists. Cabs in the past had said they don't want to pick people up there and the nearest Red Bike station wasn't doing it for me (it was like 2 in the morning and I had no desire to be awake let alone walk to the nearest station and ride a bike back home). Best $6.97 ever spent.

 

This is one instance where the inexperience/ignorance of some Uber/Lyft drivers is a benefit for the user. There are certain locations cabs won't go because they have a history of troubling rides (and no tips) originating from said locations (not talking about the Dock specifically because I have no idea if that's the case). About 5 years ago, when I lived on the corner of Liberty and Walnut (Grammer's heyday) I couldn't get a cab for a friend and ended up having to drive him to the airport. Even then it was a busy corner and far from the shadiest location in town. Today, even if you are in the shadiest location, someone on Uber or Lyft is either not going to realize it, or not care, and you'll get a ride. Part of this may also be due to the fact that tips are somewhat built in, whereas cabbies are more likely to ignore a potential rider if they feel that they won't tip.

Based on the clientele at The Dock I'm going to guess cabs weren't seeing many tips and had to go out of their way to go there. Not surprising many wouldn't even bother.

 

The fact that an Uber will pick you up literally anywhere is nice. There are just times where all other methods of moving about are just unappealing and having someone come pick you up and drive you right to your destination is nice.

Federal court rules in favor of drivers seeking employee status rather than 1099 independent contractor status:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-uber-tech-drivers-lawsuit-idUSKCN0R14O920150901

What is "The Dock", mentioned above? Is it a bar? In Cleveland cabbies are weary of certain public housing projects, but I don't know of any public bars where they won't go.

The Dock is a gay bar in Cincy that's located underneath the Brent Spence Bridge away from the rest of Downtown in a sketchy area and caters to 18-21 year olds with very little money and therefore unlikely to tip.

Just starting to drive for both and enjoy the people of Greater Cincinnati a lot.  Seems that lift is more popular in the Kentucky Region of our area but that is just early review on my part.  I keep them on and answer every ping from either company...turn off the other until I am done and then turn them on again and wait.  Sometimes what ever one I am in is what keeps pinging during busy times on the weekend.  Lyft is also has a much smaller coverage area than Uber.  Good luck this weekend with the Bengals and Octoberfest Zinzinnati going on.

I've just joined the Uber/Lyft craze in the last month or so, and really love it and marvel at the technology... In my small sample size (in Cleveland, Philly and suburban D.C.), I've found Uber to be cheaper and with greater coverage.  When I was in suburban D.C. last month, I had the same Lyft driver 3 separate times and the poor woman (who was an 8-months pregnant grad student from Nigeria), often had to come from great distances -- meaning she had a large coverage area, there was a lack of drivers and, of course, it took this lady a long time to arrive (nearly 20 minutes in one case which wasn't her fault).  And in one case, Uber covered the same trip, for less than half the cost of Lyft... (I like the fact that the Uber app gives you a cost estimate up front)

 

However, I generally like the Lyft app better.  It always shows a picture of the driver and their car (Uber sometimes only has a driver's photo and a description of their car), and I've added a selfie photo of myself which makes meeting the car that much easier... Also it seems only Lyft pinpoints where exactly the driver is and charts their movements a map  -- I could be wrong about this, though...  Plus, I like the fact that the Lyft app allows you to tip the driver after the trip... Uber claims that tips are built into their service and they encourage riders not to handle paper money -- Frankly, I don't quite trust Uber in this regard and, once, slipped a driver some cash money... Drivers for both services are unfailingly friendly and conversational in my brief experience and I always give them 5-stars (and big tips for the Lyft-ers).

 

My fear of course, is that, as the obviously bigger and stronger company, Uber someday buys out Lyft and creates a monopoly -- driving up prices and lowering service quality, of course... And yes, it does bother me that regular cabbies, who oftentimes can't afford their own cars, are getting screwed by these services-- I used a cabbie the other day just out of a sense of such guilt.

 

... One side/personal note: I believe Uber and Lyft encourage people to use public transit more, which is why I like these services even more.

I'm not sure how it is in Cleveland, but 90% of cabs in Cincinnati don't accept credit card. or if they do, it's on one of those old school carbon copy swipers, which makes it really easy for CC theft.  Also, they will often say, I can just drive you to an ATM, which is very shady.  So, since I've never had a cabby in Cincinnati accept a credit card, I exclusively use Lyft and Uber.

^^a bus ride to and an Uber/Lyft back is a good move.

 

^if a Cincy cab even comes to get you. Pre Uber/Lyft I've been stood up by cabs in Cincy more times than I can remember.