Technology

Uber Drivers- Get Ready to Be Unemployed

Uber is preparing to dump its drivers as the self-driving vehicle is not so far away. A few years ago, when I told people that self-driving cars was the new technology, the wave of the future and likely the next biggest thing since the advent of the internet, I was looked at like I had 4 heads. Now, Telsa, who is at the forefront of developing the self-driving vehicle, has announced that all Tesla cars being produced now have full self-driving hardware

Self-driving vehicles will play a crucial role in not only improving transportation safety, but in revolutionizing how people seek and utilize transportation. Full autonomy will enable a Tesla to be substantially safer than a human driver, lower the financial cost of transportation for those who own a car and provide low-cost on-demand mobility for those who do not.

Tesla’s already doing its own early testing which shows vehicles with fully autonomous capabilities navigating city and freeway streets with apparent ease. Tesla has been criticized for rolling out autonomous features before the technology is fully proven, but then again, when was the last time a disruptor to any industry was not criticized. Just like Uber, Tesla learns a great deal of information from its computers and full fleet of vehicles. Every Telsa car, even those in customers’ hands, collects data and sends it back to the company’s headquarters, where engineers analyze and refine the system. The same applies for Uber and the millions of people that use its app.

The CEO of Uber says self-driving cars won’t replace human drivers in the near term. This is surely a bluff to keep Uber drivers from leaving its flock before the next big shift in transportation takes place. We all know that the next big shift is the self-driving vehicle. Once this is fully tested, accepted and approved, Uber will kick its drivers to the curb and by then. Of course, Kalanick, the CEO of Uber, has been less vocal about how Uber’s self-driving ambitions will affect its fleet of urban drivers. Of course Uber has been less than vocal. Do you tell your staff of workers that they are about to be fired and replaced with robots before the robots actually arrive? Never. You wait till the robots arrive and then you fire everyone. Whether Uber makes deals in the future with automakers, rents self-driving vehicles or creates some other new business model in the transportation industry, the fact remains that Uber’s drivers do not have long term security with Uber.

So the question remains…why don’t Uber drivers open their eyes and realize their days are numbered. Why stay with a company that is planning, in the short term, to replace you? Why stay with a company that treat you like a commodity, rather than a person who provides a valuable service? Uber helped decimate much of the for-hire vehicle industry in New York City and the Uber drivers that stay with Uber are only furthering the demise of long-standing car service and dispatch companies. Many may say, well those long standing companies should have invested in technology like Uber and should have catered more to the needs and desires of their customers and should not complain now. Be that as it may, the reality is that once the self-driving vehicle arrives, Uber drivers will be knocked off in drives and will be seeking affiliations once again with their old dispatch bases.

Many of the smaller dispatch bases in the outer boroughs of NYC are already being decimated or are closing down. The bigger ones are holding their own, but why would a Uber driver who, eventually, is going to go back to affiliate with once of their old dispatch bases help to contribute to their downfall. Why not leave Uber now and go to a dispatch base that values your service as a provider of transportation. Yes, Uber is a means for drivers to make extra money and to have an alternative to the way business has been done in the for-hire vehicle industry in NYC for the past 30 years. But, take a look down the road, read the news and open your eyes. Uber is not the salvation army and is not going to keep one driver for one second longer than they have to. Uber drivers should not just think about today, but think about the future of transportation in NYC and their own future with a company that is actively plotting to get rid of you.

 

Deregulation off the FHV Industry in NYC?????

It has now come to pass that one company is capable of dominating a whole industry. You know the name of the company. But let u go back to the Haas Act of 1937 which instituted the “medallion system” to regulate the number of taxi operators. The yellow taxi system became a government backed monopoly that for decades reaped millions and millions of dollars upon the City of New York and the medallion holders in general. The Taxi industry successfully lobbied to limit the number of medallions for their own benefit.  The taxi companies used their influence to sway politicians in favor of their monopoly. For so many years, an investment in the medallion was a better investment that almost anything in the world.  Ironically, this monopoly left the taxi companies with no incentive to innovate or improve their services, rendering them vulnerable to something they never saw coming……..market forces.  Coddled by this lack of competition, taxi operators have made insufficient effort to be more responsive to customers, who were often frustrated by the difficulty of getting a taxicab, among other issues. So while the taxi medallion owners counted their money and laughed at those on the outside who could not get in, the City of New York became complicit in the demise of the industry. They did nothing to innovate either. No incentive to innovate or think outside the box. This caused an effect that no one could imagine.  A monopoly is essentially concentrated economic power in the hands of a few. Any concentrated power in the hands of a few is antithetical to a free market and democratic society.

The community based car services were born out of the rule mandating that the radios be taken out of the taxis and the general rule that taxis are prohibited from accepting pre-arranged transportation. So for decades, the taxis accepted street hails and the car services (and black car radio groups) provided transportation by pre arrangement. The lines were very clear and all had prospered. Then came the insurgents (the “disruptors”). All of a sudden, the lines between street hail and pre-arrangement became blurred. The Mayor of New York City is quite tech savvy and he was all in favor of the disruptors and their new “toy”. Allowing them to operate outside of the law was a governmental abuse of power and abdication of its responsibility to its citizens. All of a sudden, the disruptors were allowed to accept street hails and prearrangement, which took a significant chunk of business away from both the taxis and the car services. While the taxis and car services played by the rules and were smacked by the regulators when they violated the rules, the disruptors were permitted to operate unlawfully and with impunity.

The City of New York used the taxi monopoly for its own benefit for decades and now has essentially abandoned the transitional for hire vehicle industry. When the “disruptors” came to town, some were not daunted and did not see the need to innovate. Also, they did not see nor could they comprehend that an evil empire had come to town. This was a huge mistake. The black car industry enabled the disruptors and the TLC allowed them to operate outside of the law for so long that by the time everyone woke up, it was too late.

We are now at the point where most in the for hire vehicle industry have begun to lose faith that anyone or anything can help them. By its very nature, monopolies tend to arrest progress. In the beginning, when the taxis reigned supreme, the City of New York standardized the prices and the products, but in the process, in order to retain that standard, the City arrested efficiency and progress…and that itself stagnated the industry and prevented it from growing and innovating.

Very often, a business grows in efficiency as it grows from a small business to a large business; but there is a unit of greatest efficiency in every business that may be too large to be efficient. The profits of a monopoly are not due in the main to efficiency, but are due to the control of the market. The ratio of profit ordinarily is in direct relation to the ratio of control. Where a company has a high degree of control, the profits are great; where they had a small degree of control, the profits are small.

When is the City of New York going to learn the fact that the effect of a monopoly is the arresting of progress and the arresting of advance in industry. It should have learned this with the taxi industry, but now it is doing the same thing with the “disruptors”. The City of New York is perpetuating another monopoly. The City and its regulatory regime is on the wrong path right now and unless they change course, a great for hire transportation infrastructure for the future is unattainable.

A practice is unreasonable if it tends to destroy competition. And we know now what the main practices are which have been pursued by the “disruptors” to secure the monopoly-control of our industry. They are cut-throat competition, espionage, doing business as fake independents, the making of exclusive contracts, as well as many other methods and practices of unfair trade which have been pursued not for the purpose of conducting a business in competition with others, but for the purpose of killing competitors. Again, we have found grave defects in our regulatory machinery.

Personally, I would like to restore competition and do away with the conditions that make for monopoly. But the regulators of the City’s taxi and limousine industry are blinded. The “disruptors” have a lack of respect not only for the law, our City and our institutions, but also our citizens themselves. And yet, with this great demand for on demand transportation staring us in the face, we need to be calling upon everyone we can to do everything we can to bring the “disruptors” back to a respect for law and to convince the regulators to deregulate the industry. This is to prevent another monopoly and for the benefit of all. We are seeing that if we follow the current path, a few rich and powerful people can defy the law; that their power is so great that there will be private monopoly and we cannot prevent it; and that, therefore, if such is the case, we must content ourselves with seeking to mitigate the evil. Respect for the law must be supreme, but the great question involves question more fundamental. For generations immigrants came to this City seeking and obtaining the job of a taxi driver. This used to act as a gateway to the American Dream and the ownership of a medallion was the gateway to riches. Now, it’s the gateway to hell and destruction.

If this opportunity is no longer available and this is no longer the land of opportunity, then what does America stands for. Our whole regulatory system of the industry is for naught. What does democracy involve? Not merely political and religious liberty, but industrial liberty also. Is not business today one of the greatest part of life? What America needs is not the combination of power in the hands of a few, but to keep open the path of opportunity to enable the industry to do for themselves. The current regulatory regime is not merely a capitalistic control of the industry. It is the worst form of capitalistic control. It is absentee capitalistic control. The responsibility and sensibility of regulation is lacking. If there had been responsibility of regulation in the industry, then we would all not be witnessing destruction of the minority based community car services in all 5 boroughs of NYC. 

Uber- the User of the Human Race

When I said a few years ago (3 to be more exact) that there would be something in the near future called the driverless vehicle, people looked at me as if I was crazy. I then reminded them of a time in history, not too long ago, when there was no cable TV and the thought of paying to watch TV was laughable. Also, there was a time when the idea of a cordless telephone, much less a pocket sized computer, would have seemed like a crazy idea. But any fan of technology will always remember Moore's Law. Gordon Moore was a founder of Intel Corp and he extrapolated that the computing would dramatically increase in power, and decrease in relative cost, at an exponential pace. Moore’s observation transformed computing from a rare and expensive venture into a pervasive and affordable necessity. All of the modern computing technology we know and enjoy sprang from the foundation laid by Moore’s Law. From the Internet itself, to social media and modern data analytics, all these innovations stem directly from Moore and his findings. So with technology moving and improving at an exponential pace every other year, why would it be so far fetched to have a driverless car. Now, we all know it is not so far fetched.

Also, when Uber came around and blindsided everyone, many sat around thinking that Uber had a great idea and would be a great addition to our transportation needs. I told people "you don't get it". Uber is not just out to conquer the for-hire transportation market. They are out to revolutionize the world. Now keep in mind that I did not say they are going to revolutionize the world in a good way. Their innovation is amazing. But you have to look long term, just as Uber is and has been doing since day #1.

First and foremost is that Uber drivers, all of which thought Uber was a great way to make extra money or a great alternative to providing traditional taxi or car and limousine service. They all flocked to Uber and some still do. Unfortunately, they only look at what is in front of them. New articles are slowly popping up when an Uber driver aptly explains that they now understand that Uber is literally using its drivers....and I don't mean using as a means to make money. I mean using as a placeholder until the new technology comes out (self-driving vehicles) which will ultimately displace all the Uber driver who thought they found gold in Uber....Yes, it was gold, but fools gold.

Little by little, Uber drivers are realizing that by working with Uber, they are continuing to contribute to their own demise. They all should either start looking for another profession or go back to the car services and taxi companies they were affiliated with before Uber hit the market. It is not too late to go back and prevent Uber from destroying the world as we know it. Uber is an evil empire and is not out to dave the world, but is out to dominate the world in so many ways. Combine the inventions of the vehicle (internal combustion engine and assembly line) with computers and the light bulb and you won't even come close to the revolution that Uber is trying to create.

The problem is not so much that Uber is the evil empire, unlike Thomas Edison, who was truly a benevolent inventor, but that I do not believe the world is prepared to deal with all the changes to life as we know it, the global economy and human interactions. These are just a few things. But don't take my word for it.....Do you own research and think about it for just little bit and you may see that Uber is much more than it appears and all of what is seen is not good......so if what you see is not so good then what will happen next.

Remember, there are a number of extremely smart people who have investment mule-millions and billions of dollars into a company that has yet to turn a profit. Is it because all these people are dumb? Is the valuation of over $60,000,000,000,00 unrealistic? The people behind Uber, who have invested mega amount of money, all know something that we don't. They all know that Uber may very well be the next Apple, the most valuable company in the world. Steve Jobs was an innovator with no comparison and Apple did wonders to change the world...but Uber is a different story. Again, think about it, do you own research and come to your own conclusions.

Now that we are at the end of my ramblings, back to my main point. Uber drivers should leave Uber and stop contributing to their own demise.

Permissionless Innovation in the FHV Industry in NYC

While Uber may have come up with a fantastic app, their business model of dispatch (i.e. closest car) is hardly novel. Their superior technology allowed them to hit the industry hard when its back was turned. The problem is that the main players in the industry are now, after having been hit hard, looking for solutions in the traditional mode. The problem is that we are well past the traditional means of solving issues in the industry.

The days of having the leaders of the industry sit down and work things out are over. If Uber showed us anything it surely was that new updated ways of thinking are necessary in this day in age and at this stage of the game.

Immediate, massive Uber adoption allowed them to flout the laws/regulations all while gaining PR at an unprecedented pace….and remember….all PR is good PR. .” In a short period of time, enough people started using the regulation-flouting service which made it both impractical and politically unpopular to crack down upon. Ask NYC Mayor Deblasio who he supported when he was the Public Advocate. When it came time to stand up to Uber, our Mayor backed off.

When confronted with legal obstacles, such as tickets for operating illegally at Newark Airport, Uber utilized its massive checkbook to circumvent any problems by paying the fines incurred by its drivers and fighting their court cases. In the meantime, the company lobbies politicians, and of course, their massive pockets go a long way to obtaining time with leading politicians who are all tool happy to take their money to help in their re-election campaign……and in the meantime, most of the public are oblivious as to what Uber is doing….doing to its drivers, doing to the industry, doing to their own safety….but in the end, then win over unwitting consumer. In every instance thus far the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission relented and brought Uber’s practices within the four corners of the law.

In nearly every city it’s entered, Uber’s strategy has succeeded with far-reaching consequences. By muscling into urban center after urban center, Uber hasn’t just changed how people work and get around. It’s transformed what it means to be a consumer..

Uber’s strategy is called “permissionless innovation”. It is the idea that we should make just about everything legal and let the individualized choices of consumers dictate the shape of society…..and when people get hurt, lawyers, laws and lawsuits can try to retroactively sort things out. I believe that experimentation and innovation with new technologies should generally be encouraged, but not without any limitation. Before Uber came along, the for-hire vehicle industry in NYC was vibrant. Yes, the yellow taxis needed to become more responsive to the needs of consumers and the car services needed a bit of a kick in the butt to get them to innovate a bit, but at least they played by the rules. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will not bring serious harm to society, innovation should not be allowed to continue unabated and just wait to address the problems when they occur at a later point in time.

Generally, permissionless innovation means a start-up is allowed to break the law so they can give consumers what they want. Regulation sure shackles entrepreneurialism, but regulation is mostly in place for a reason. It is the job of the government to look after the health, safety and welfare of its citizens…and hopefully to regulate in a fair manner. It is not laws that corrupt people, such as politicians. It is money that corrupts people. Money corrupts politicians, eventually corrupts the process and in the end causes more harm than good.

What is Uber today if not the biggest lawbreaker in the world. Uber’s lawbreaking is unprecedented in the transportation industry. Uber’s open defiance of municipal law sets it apart from others Permissionless innovation is just another way of saying “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission”…and for every rule that Uber breaks, the NYC TLC seems all too happy to forgive Uber. Permissionless innovation suggests that the correct order for dramatic technological changes should be first harm, then fix. Perhaps the resolution is to totally deregulate and let the consumer make their choice.

Uber pitted regulators in NYC between the existing regulatory system and the desire of thousands of consumers to utilize a new service. Some permissionless innovation proponents equate consumer choice with democracy. Every purchase of the services of a Uber driver is akin to a vote for a product, it service and its business model. Yet, what is good for consumers is not always good for the public on the whole. Tensions between workers’ interests and consumers’ interests often collide. Even more than that, workers and consumers enjoy fundamentally different levels of power under capitalism. Most workers cannot choose between competing employers the way a shopper chooses which TV to buy. Millions of workers cannot even find employment. Uber claims to be a creator of jobs, but its recent entry to the creation of the driverless vehicle proves that Uber is not looking to create jobs, but is looking to use drivers to roll out their product to the consumer and when the driverless vehicle comes into being, to drop those drivers like a bad habit.

Uber benefits from and exacerbates the precarious situation between worker and consumer by drawing many of its drivers from the ranks of the unemployed and/or underemployed— and then completing the circle of death by classifying them as independent contractors. But misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors is not what sets Uber apart from the others. What’s different is Uber’s unconcealed contempt for the rules set out by citizens’ elected representatives. Therein lies the danger. You don’t have to regard monopolistic taxi laws as democracy incarnate to recognize the threat Uber poses to basic norms of popular governance.

Permissionless innovation has produced a world where a paying customer justifies any and all business practices, where certain laws— like the minimum wage and overtime pay — is entirely warranted if the market deems them unnecessary. But citizens are not synonymous with consumers. Consumers act according to different imperatives, and in ways that often undermine the rights of workers. And if you confer on them supreme power — sidestepping the ballot box and other forms of democratic control — you create a reactionary new order.

Personally, I am OK with deregulation of the FHV industry and letting he market decide for itself what it wants, but then don’t come crying to me when someone gets hurt or a workers is paid less than the minimum wage…..or for that matter don’t go running to your local politician for help because they usually do more harm than good. Finally, don’t go running to the courts when you feel you have been wronged. In the civil justice system, justice is like beauty, as it is often in the eye of the beholder.

I am all for getting rid of the regulators and letting the FHV industry fight it out amongst themselves. Let the strong survive or let the meek inherit the earth. Regulators serve only one purpose and that is to create more regulations. This does not help the situation, especially in NYC. We don’t need more regulations. We need the ability to compete on the merits without politicians and regulators telling us what to do. The NYC TLC has shown its contempt for competition on the merits. If they had any respect for the rule of law, Uber would have had its license pulled years ago.

In the end, the consumer wants Uber…of simply Uber-like service. So then let the public have what it wants, but there will be consequences and I believe the politicians and regulators in NYC, a liberal state, will simply not allow this to happen. Politics in NYC has largely been corrupt since the beginning of time. Uber has adeptly taken advantage of the loopholes in the law and the regulators have turned a blind eye.

So where does that leave us after my long rant…….Fair competition is the key to a healthy market. The regulators and politicians either cannot allow it or will not help maintain it……since all else has failed thus far, why not let the market be deregulated for a period, let consumers choose and suffer whatever consequences may come their way from their choice of providers/suppliers…… and let innovation reign supreme…..but in the meantime, get the regulators off our backs or at least put on a show and act like they are truly seeking to maintain a fair and open marketplace. Until, we put the brakes on all of this, the consequences of the Uber disruption will be felt for generations to come. If it is good, then our children and our grandchildren will benefit. If it is bad, then we have ourselves to blame for not taking a minute to put the brakes on innovation and growth of the for FHV transportation marketplace. The stakes are very high for all involved, but for the moment very few people are looking at the big picture. Ask yourself the hard questions, look at each point of view, consider what is best not just for yourself, but for society in general…and then you may begin to wonder, is permissionless innovation a good thing that should continue unabated…or should we take a minute to stop and consider the long term ramifications. 

Uber the Monopolist- What Happens When Uber is the Only Game in Town?

Nearly everyone who uses Uber is impressed by this transportation service. In many cases it makes transportation within urban and suburban areas less pricey. Due to the supply of "Uber Drivers", the service is also much more convenient to obtain on demand transportation than it was in the pre-Uber-era dominated by government-regulated taxicabs. Uber may be a boon to consumers (for the moment) and to the drivers (until the self-driving vehicle displaces all the drivers). But there is a much bigger problem that I do not believe the public sees or even fully understands.

Uber is the prime example of creative destruction. In the case of on demand transportation, destroying not only an older, established way of serving consumers but, more importantly of destroying the government-granted monopoly of the taxi medallion. The taxi industry sat on its fat ass for so long that it had zero incentive to innovate. They relied 100% on what they believe to be a government backed privilege that would never be destroyed....that is until the government didn’t really back it anymore because something better came along. While this is very short sighted on the part of the government that sells these medallions, the fact remains that the government let it happen. Worse of all, the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission continues to let it happen by allowing Uber to operate outside the law.

Uber is a true monopolist partially because its success involves destroying the medallion and the independent car service companies that have traditionally served the markets. Entry restrictions and other government-granted privileges that use to protect traditional taxicab owners from competition is now long gone. While Uber likely could have passed any restrictions to entry, had it chosen to do it the proper way, the problem is that they chose to do so in an improper and underhanded fashion. The key here is not that they entered in a destructive manner, but that they did so in an illegal and unfair manner. A technology company my ass. They are partially technology and partially transportation. But the fact of the matter remains that they entered the market and the government regulators took so long to get on the ball that by the time they did, it was too late. When the regulators finally woke up, Uber was already here to stay. So the government could only say to them "fine...you can stay so long as you submit to our regulations". By then, it didn’t matter, Uber was already a powerhouse. So much for the government protecting the small businesses that have served as the backbone of our neighborhoods for decades. Most of all, so much for the government requiring businesses to follow the rule of law. Uber broke the law (and continues to do so) and is either granted absolution by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission or they simply continue without any repercussions.

A monopoly in an of itself is not wrong or illegal. But an entity that becomes a monopoly by engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior is an illegal monopoly. Using new technology to destroy a long-entrenched monopoly is not itself a lamentable, monopolizing development. Using aggressive tactics to obtain drivers and customers is also not improper. The ultimate problem is that for Uber to succeed, it must destroy all the competition. Uber can’t leverage anything if it’s just one of several competing ride-sharing apps. That’s why the company must behave so aggressively. Again, aggressive tactics are fine, but the law specifically prohibits certain exclusionary or predatory conduct because it is anti-competitive. Such anti-competitive conduct comes in many forms. Exclusionary conduct has been defined as conduct, other than competition on the merits or restraints reasonably necessary to maintain competition on the merits

Uber's actions and conduct is not just aggressive, but it is clearly exclusionary and predatory. Pick your poison.....Uber has engaged in Predatory Pricing, Predatory Bidding, Predatory Affiliation, violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 USC 45) that prohibits ‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce".....and most of all, we all know that Uber has intentionally engaged in Misclassification of Drivers for the Purpose of Gaining an Unfair Advantage.

Of course any company worth the weight of its corporate charter wants as large a market share as it can possibly achieve and will act aggressively in pursuit of that as-large-as-possible market share. That’s what competition is supposed to incite companies to do. Competition is good. Competition is healthy for the market and for the consumer. Competition, in the case of Uber, has required the traditional taxis and car services to find new ways to gain customers and to WOW them with their customer service. This was a well needed kick in the ass. BUT...the main point is that the law does not protect competitors, but seeks to protect competition itself.  Competition on some basis other than the merits or any conduct by an entity that secures market share by means other than the competitive merits of a specific service is anticompetitive and illegal. this is the essence of Uber.....illegal anticompetitive conduct.

The purpose of antitrust laws is to protect free enterprise and consumers. What if there were only one grocery store in your community? What if you could buy a phone from only one retailer? What if only one dealer in your area sold cars?  Without competition, the grocer may have no incentive to lower prices. The phone shop may have no reason to offer a range of choices. The car dealer may have no motivation to keep its showroom open at convenient hours or offer competitive financing. Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high. Competition also encourages businesses to offer new and better products. Competition makes our economy work. Antitrust laws often have to be used by competitors in order to ensure that our markets are open and free. The law seeks to promote free and open competition and encourages challenges to anticompetitive business practices to make sure that consumers have access to quality goods and services at competitive prices, and that businesses can compete on the merits of their work.

The word “antitrust” dates from the late 1800s, when powerful companies dominated industries, working together as “trusts” to stifle competition. Thus, laws aimed at protecting competition have long been labeled “antitrust.” Fast forward to the 21st century: you hear “antitrust” in news stories about competitors merging or companies conspiring to reduce competition. Antitrust laws often have to be used by competitors and consumers to challenge business practices that could hurt consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, or fewer goods or services.

While the government and its regulatory agencies are supposed to monitor business practices and challenge them when appropriate, the reality is that our government has done nothing to stop Uber and our elected officials are not going to take any corrective action. Thus, we need the industry to “think outside the box”. How ironic is it that one of the most successful monopoly-destroyers of recent years — Uber — is quickly becoming a monopoly itself.

The average consumer may not know it now, but when Uber is the only game in town, what will stop Uber from raising its prices beyond the norm and essentially raping the average consumer with its "surge pricing". The answer is NOTHING. When the competition is gone, Uber will be able to do whatever it wants. Some will say that no one will use the service if it gets too expensive. Remember that Uber changed the rules of the game. People now not only want, but they expect on demand transportation..... and Uber has shown that the consumer is willing to pay for it. When Uber is the only game in town, because they have gone unchecked for so many years, who will stop them then. The time to act is now. Contact me to discuss this matter further.

 

Driver Distraction - More than Meets the eye

Driver distraction is a real problem facing NYC for-hire transportation market. The number of accidents involving Black Car (a/k/a Uber drivers) is staggering compared to the statistics without them. But the main problem is not just the accidents and injuries caused thereby, but the government's reaction and the  implications to the consumer. First, the NYC TLC just recently instituted new "Driver Fatigue" rules limiting the number of hours a driver can operate. So while the TLC thinks the roads of NYC will be safer with drivers operating less frequently, the TLC also has a rule that permits a driver to accept dispatches from more than one base and to use more than one smartphone/tablet device to obtain dispatches. So according to the TLC, a driver should be limited in the number of hours they work, but it is OK for them to look at 2 different devices while operating their vehicle. Technically they are not supposed to do this, but lets be real. Drivers are doubling up and using two apps to get a dispatch from the first company that offers it. The TLC is blind and dumb if they don't see this. Also, the implications to the consumer are not so obvious, but are equally disturbing. Think about it. A driver can accept a dispatch from Company A and be on route to pick up the customer, and then receive a more lucrative dispatch from Company B (Uber) and simply not pick up customer #1 and leave them stranded in order to pick top customer #2 (the Uber customer). If you are the Uber customer (customer #2), you are not likely to know this or care, but if you are customer #1, then you will be left stranded and without transportation. Or company #1 will send a dispatch to another driver who will accept and perform the job, but will surely be late in picking up customer #1. Whether customer #1 is left stranded or the driver is late, customer #1 will surely be completely disgusted by company #1. Now remember, the driver is an independent contractor, so company #1 can not mandate that the driver pick up customer #1 and as such, when the driver leaves customer #1 stranded, company #1 is left to deal with the unhappy customer who ultimately is late for work or late for a meeting, leaves a nasty review on Yelp or some other social media and makes complaints to company #1 and the TLC. Company #1 is left to deal with the unhappy customer who was left stranded due to no fault of their own. The government regulators, who created this whole mess to begin with by allowing drivers to accept dispatches from multiple base stations, does not even consider the fact that drivers are causing accidents because they are using two different devices to obtain dispatches, all while driveling the vehicle. The effects of an accident from this type of driver distraction is obviously, but the driver that leaves customer #1 stranded to pick up an Uber customer has a more far reaching effect........this causes a total erosion of the good will most of the car services in NYC have built up for decades before Uber was ever born. So the next time you are left stranded without being picked up or the driver is late for a pick up, remember that there is more going on than meets the eye....and also don't forget, remember that Uber has more accidents than any other licensed base than any other in NYC. So if you are customer #2 and don't care about what happened to the customer #1 above, then you better make sure you are strapped in and have good insurance of your own because customer #2 (aka the Uber customer) is more likely to be involved in an accident in an Uber vehicle than any other for-hire vehicle on the road  Keep that in mind when you book your next ride with Uber. 

The City and TLC Treats Uber and Lyft Unequally From the Rest of the Industry

By now, Uber is known for a uniquely aggressive approach to establishing a market foothold: They push themselves into a market, cause a ruckus, upset people, break rules and then (seemingly as a last resort) work on bringing everybody together. In New York City, the local government and the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) allowed Uber and Lyft to operate in an illegal fashion for so long that the TNCs were eventually absolved from their past indiscretions, in exchange for finally submitting to the TLC’s regulatory scheme.

At this point in time, we are used to the personality of Uber, which consists of using unfair and often illegal acts to dominate the world. While we do not condone this behavior, the TLC’s actions of continuing to accept Uber’s plea for forgiveness, rather than mandating that they ask for permission first, is arguably more reprehensible than Uber’s own conduct. Because of the disruption caused by Uber and Lyft, the TLC has now taken the approach of regulate first, then ask questions later. But the TLC still fails to recognize or admit that their well-intended regulations continue to be ignored by Uber and Lyft – and their acts of absolving Uber from continued violations is not only inherently unfair, but often does more to restrict entrepreneurs than protect consumers.

The livery industry is so upset, not because they are being beat by technology, but because we now have to compete against a company who is not required to play by the same rules. What is more unfair than the government treating two entities that provide the same service in an unequal fashion?

Uber and Lyft relish their status as disrupters and have a long record of operating in violation of local laws. They have done this in New York, across the nation and around the world. While the TLC eventually drafted new rules for Uber and Lyft to play by in a fair fashion, the TLC’s failure to enforce these rules is reprehensible. Uber and Lyft are still continuing with their dirty old tricks. After causing the breakdown of the yellow taxi and black car industries, Uber and Lyft are now after the livery industry, seeking to conquer it with tactics that completely disregard existing laws.

Uber and Lyft's latest trick involves a direct attack upon the livery industry. A year ago, the de Blasio administration passed a rule that prohibits what's called “cross-dispatching,” where black car bases (like those owned by Uber and Lyft) cannot dispatch livery cars and vice-versa. This might seem like some obscure regulation, but the rule was created to protect livery customers who typically live outside Manhattan and can’t afford Uber's diabolic surge pricing practices. (Many livery customers don’t even have a credit card, which is necessary for all Uber transactions.) The rule was also created to protect livery drivers who are not covered by either the Black Car Fund or the Livery Fund. If a livery driver accepts a dispatch from one of Uber or Lyft’s black car bases and is subsequently involved in an accident, they are covered by neither Fund. Furthermore, when Uber and Lyft illegally dispatch a driver affiliated with a community car base, they also hurt the poorer and older members of our communities who are supposed to receive a binding price quote when a livery driver picks them up. The binding price quote is the protection afforded to those members of our community who request services via a livery driver, and it is one of the primary differentiators between a livery base and a black car base.

While Uber and Lyft’s illegal and underhanded tactics are despicable, what is even worse is that the TLC has ignored the pleas of the livery industry to compel Uber and Lyft to comply with the law. For example, several livery bases and myself, on behalf of the Livery Roundtable, have already alerted the TLC about Uber and Lyft’s illegal activities, and even provided them with proof, but the TLC has, to date, done nothing to stop them. If the TLC refuses to hold Uber and Lyft accountable for their illegal actions, then how can the TLC claim to be fair and purport to apply the law equally to all those that come under their regulatory authority. The TLC is too busy figuring out how to regulate more, rather than enforce the regulations that already exist. What is the good of more regulations when the TLC does not enforce the ones they have in the first place?

It is one thing for a company to enter the marketplace with a superior product and/or provide superior service and obtain market share on those merits. It is another story when entities, such as Uber and Lyft, are able to enter the market, totally disrupt it, break the law, and be absolved of all wrong doing by simply asking for forgiveness. If this was all in the past, I would move on to other issues, but I am talking about the present. The TLC still has not taken any action in response to the uncontroverted proof that I submitted to them of Uber’s illegal actions.

I suppose to the TLC is it is acceptable for them to have two standards – one for Uber and Lyft and one for the rest of the industry. The livery industry is not Uber or Lyft, and will never be. We pride ourselves on being made up of over 400, mostly mom-and-pop car service businesses. The problem is that the livery industry is worried that because of Bill de Blasio’s bruising fight with Uber last summer, the administration will continue to take an even more hands-off approach to Uber and Lyft. Uber and Lyft should not get a free ride at the expense of car service companies and their customers, just because they have the money to launch a strong marketing campaign against the de Blasio administration. We hope the administration takes action… and fast. While the TLC sits idly by, our businesses and customers are suffering.

By: Steven J. Shanker, Esq.

 

Uber is Creating a Jobless Future

Professional car service and taxicab drivers are fighting for survival in New York City in a new economy which is trying to replace them with other means of transporting customers.  New business models like those of Uber and Lyft are threatening drivers and customers alike. Car service and taxicab drivers are joining a long list of people replaced by new technologies: grocery-store clerks, dockworkers, retail employees (especially from book, music, and video stores), etc.  As the twenty-first century proceeds, it is replacing jobs with apps. This is a new lower-wage and even jobless model of business.  There are three problems at work, which are creating a new jobless economy, and are associated with, respectively, the business models of Uber along with the likes of Wal-Mart, and Amazon.

The Uber Problem

The first problem with our "new economy" is the Uberization of the work force and the business model of replacing well-paid, full-time, professional workers with low paid amateurs. While Uber drivers bring in somewhat more revenue per hour for short shifts than do cab drivers (who make much more money per hour for long shifts than for short ones), they are also entirely self-financing (car, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.), unlike most cab drivers (who depend on their companies to provide some or all of their operating costs).  Such jobs are often intended by car-owners to supplement other income, or while looking for a better job, rather than (as for most cab drivers) serving as a long-term profession.  The Uber model of transportation has been deconstructing the regulatory environment designed to keep us safe, allowing drivers to work without undergoing local police investigation (generally required in most places for cab-driving licenses).  They also drive cars that are not inspected by any authority, in contrast to expensively inspected taxicabs.  Uber drivers have been involved in many physical and sexual on passengers and bystanders and the is creating an ugly reality that existing regulations have not helped to prevent.

Unfortunately the dangers posed by Uber to our communities are not limited to the immediate physical dangers posed by improperly licensed and unvetted drivers, operating uninspected vehicles, and with no regulatory intervention in the employment of potentially dangerous individuals (with criminal backgrounds, or with high accident rates).  Uber is also teaching passengers that any idiot with a car can replace a professional driver operating an expensively fitted, inspected, and insured vehicle.  Uber is teaching us to disrespect professional means of income-earning, and to prefer a cheap but dangerous alternative.  Uber is teaching us to prefer a less effective and less prosperous economy, and offers us discounted car rides in return for our safety, our jobs, and our souls.  As the Uber model passes (as it ultimately will) to cargo transport and other business sectors, our economy will replace more full-time jobs with low-pay, part-time work.  Wealth will be created for the designers of Uber, Lyft, and other services.  But such services are also transforming middle-class jobs of the 20th century into lower-class jobs of the 21st century.  Uberization is diminishing jobs as drivers themselves make less money and consume less, driving demand and production down as well.

Uber is not alone, nor is it the first manifestation of this problem.  From the 1950s through the 1980s, store clerks and cashiers earned income levels closer to the middle class.  Such workers had to memorize many prices and categories of products, and operate complicated registers.  They required training and experience to do their jobs properly; and could only be fired at the expense of the investment in training a new employee.  However, the development of bar-codes and scanners enabled grocery and retail stores to hire lower-paid workers, and to deploy new workers with little training and experience (enabling bosses to replace more easily those wanting raises or organizing for benefits).  A career profession became merely an entry-level job for adolescents; and a job capable of supporting a small family became a minimum-wage job pushing the professional into looking for work elsewhere.

A similar phenomenon took place in the 1960s, when factory farming began replacing family farming.  Factory farms employ low-wage workers with little to no experience (often illegal immigrants and young children) and provide consumers with cheap food that also pushed family farm workers into seeking work elsewhere (perhaps becoming grocery-store clerks, or cab drivers).  While few would argue that high food prices are good for a population, the path from that step led to the replacement of other middle-class professions with part-time and/or lower-class pay rates, such as our retail workers and cab drivers.  Uber is merely the latest nail in the coffin of the middle-class worker, a coffin we have been building since the middle class first expanded so successfully in the middle of the last century.

The Wal-Mart Problem

Another effect impacting our economy is its growing Walmartization.  Wal-Mart has sought to provide low-cost products to consumers by encouraging American manufacturers to push manufacturing jobs to overseas locations.  In order to gain customers, Wal-Mart has deliberately deconstructed the American middle class by shipping overseas the jobs on which we depend.  Consumers giving their money to Wal-Mart pay for the privilege of exporting and eliminating our jobs, our economic security, our union rights, our tax revenues, and our social services.

As with Uber, Wal-Mart is of course not acting alone.  Since the 1990s NAFTA has helped to globalize American manufacturing.  And the US has been bleeding manufacturing jobs for decades, as foreign nations have seen increases in educational levels, technical familiarity, physical health, and political stability; while also remaining below US rates of income (all things encouraging ever more investment in new overseas plant capital).  However, Wal-Mart developed a specifically targeted plan for pushing manufacturing overseas, and at the same time kept its own workers at low wages (forcing many to seek government-funded welfare and social support). The company has not only exported middle-class American jobs; but also maintains pressure on the labor market to keep wages at or below poverty levels.  The company’s workers become absolutely dependent on companies like Wal-Mart for their cheap food and products, the only products they can then afford.  Wal-Mart cooperates with Uber and other sectors in deprofessionalizing the labor market (by continuing to push retail wages lower), and in depressing wages and income.  Wal-Mart has been steadily converting the middle class into the lower class (driving down consumption and demand and production); and the working class into the unemployed.

The Amazon Problem

The final effect driving us toward universal unemployment is the Amazonification of business; and the related automation of all work areas.  Amazon has amassed an enormous financial empire by replacing “brick and mortar” businesses with instantaneous touch-screen or keyboard shopping by computer, phone, or tablet.  In the process, the "Amazon Effect" has put out of business bookstores (including major chains like Borders), record stores (also killed by iTunes and other music-sharing technologies), and video stores (with an even more forceful shove by businesses like Netflix).  These impacts have hurt large companies and family-owned businesses alike; and they have killed off more jobs than the growing empires of Amazon and other such companies have created.  Amazon’s deconstruction of “brick and mortar” retail operations did not merely (like Uber) push middle-class jobs into the lower class; or (like Wal-Mart) push middle-class jobs overseas.  Instead, the jobs lost to the Amazon business model (and to data services that replace stores providing books, music, and video) are lost completely, and forever.  For example, Netflix has effectively replaced video stores across the nation; and yet it currently employs approximately 4000 people.

Some businesses have survived the scorched earth left by the “Amazon effect” by emulating the workerless e-commerce model (like Barnes and Noble, which while still maintaining physical book-stores sells a great deal of its merchandise through its automated online ordering system).  Other businesses have survived by becoming tributary fiefdoms of the Amazon empire, selling their products through Amazon’s order processing service (which provides small businesses with a potentially global clientele).  But the failure of 20th century, labor-intensive retail to compete with 21st century, information-intensive business models tells the full story.  Even though some businesses have held on by bowing to the inevitable, the inevitable has killed far more business opportunities and actual jobs than it has created.  Those opportunities created on the information super-highway have largely been monopolized by a few powerful corporations like Amazon, Netflix, Apple, etc.

As with Uber and Wal-Mart, Amazon did not create this phenomenon, but jammed its foot down on the accelerator of the process already underway. The “Amazon effect” are the results of automation and the improvement of technology and software.  Grocery stores also automate and eliminate jobs by using self-checkout lanes (enabling a smaller work force to manage larger numbers of customers and products).  Apps replace workers and specialists.  Expensive and expanding technologies are going to increase also the number and diversity of jobs lost to automation and applications, including many previously seen as “untouchable” (requiring too much dexterity, skill, creativity or intuition, etc.; all of which are now being surpassed by better technologies and software).

In the next decade, self-driving cars are going to replace many of today’s cars.  The self-driving car will launch the next work-force revolution.  Customers frustrated by sketchy and unstable Uber drivers (who by then will have out-priced cab drivers into obsolescence) will enjoy new services which simply send them self-driving car-bots.  Owners of self-driving cars will realize that having their car sitting in the driveway, or in the parking lot at work, is a lost opportunity to have the car make money.  New apps will enable owners of such cars to release their cars to leasing services until they need them back.  Fewer and fewer people will own (and buy) cars, as it becomes easier and cheaper to simply share cars through such systems.  And fewer people will make them.  Soon, no one will be driving cars for a living.  

Into the Jobless Economy We Go!
These three effects are combining to create the new, jobless economy of the 21st century.  Uberization and related effects are helping to deconstruct middle-class incomes and our respect for middle-class professions.  Walmartization is transferring ever more jobs overseas, and maintaining ever more poor people on low-level incomes that force their dependence on government assistance.  Amazonification and automation are reducing and eliminating the work force entirely, insulating wealth from the need to employ people at all.  These effects are progressively transforming capitalism from a labor-intensive means of generating wealth (which “shares” at least a portion of the wealth with the working classes responsible for actually creating it) into an information-intensive model no longer requiring workers.  

The jobless economy also inhibits the formation of small businesses by those without inherited or pre-established wealth.  Small businesses cannot compete on the information superhighway with major corporations able to make and exploit new applications and technologies (and economies of scale) which push their operating costs below those of local businesses.  Local businesses are dependent on many other large businesses to move outside and attract global clientele.  As the century progresses, both work and entrepreneurial opportunities are going to be increasingly monopolized at the top, and are going to be increasingly absent at the middle and bottom.

Ultimately, there are three places these effects can lead us.  The first is the realization that, if people are not going to have either work or business opportunities available to them, then the state is just going to have to provide them with food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc.  This will create the nightmare: the total welfare state.  An uglier option is a dystopian future of mass hunger, disease, suffering, and death. Finally, a third path takes us through violent revolution by the hungry masses; although that option will likely still lead to one or the other of the first two (welfare state, or dystopia of hunger and death).  Are you ready to explore these exciting new vistas?   Then, hop into an Uber car and enjoy the ride!

 

  •  

Who Is The Real Winner In The Uber $100 Million Class Action Settlement

Who Is The Real Winner In The Uber $100 Million Class Action Settlement

While Uber just settled two major class action lawsuits that were pending in California and Massachusetts to the tune of $100 Million Dollars, the settlement does not amount to much and really does not settle anything. This was the case that was supposed to knock Uber off the high perch it has sat on since its founding in 2009. $100 Million Dollars is a lot of money, but with billions in financing, this amount is a very modest price for Uber to pay to protect its business.

The thing is, the settlement does not really settle anything. By settling these lawsuits, Uber has forestalled any precedent being set on the question of whether Uber—and others in the so called “gig economy” has a legal obligation to classify its workers as employees.  A loss of a case like this would cost Uber billions of dollars, eroding its potential profitability and its supposed value.

The question of whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees centers largely on how much control the company exerts over them. The main difference is that if drivers are employees, then Uber has to pay drivers benefits like health insurance, paid time off as well as payroll tax and other large costs associated with benefits that employees are entitled to under the law.

The key question left unanswered by the settlement announcement is whether the drivers are receiving enough in return for what they're giving up. Nothing fundamental in the balance of income and expenses will change as a result of the deal. Uber drivers will still have to pay for gas, insurance and wear-and-tear on their vehicles, and Uber will retain the right to set fares and extract fees and commissions of more than 20%.

The settlement of these cases is a great deal for Uber because, at least for the moment, it removes what was plainly regarded as a massive threat to its business. Uber portrays the deal as a complete victory for drivers because according to Uber, drivers value their independence. This is yet another example of Uber’s press relations machine operating at full steam (blow hard steam).

The settlement agreement boils down to one thing: If a judge accepts the terms, Uber can still treat its drivers as independent contractors, in exchange for a few minor concessions that address some concerns that drivers had expressed throughout the case. The main part of the settlement that directly affects Uber riders is the company’s agreement to stop saying that the tip is included in the fare. Uber often discouraged its drivers from soliciting tips from passengers because the company argued the extra step made the experience much less seamless and thus less on-demand. But riders were never prohibited from tipping their drivers; they were just told they didn’t need to. This was done because Uber didn’t want riders to have to carry around cash. Uber’s saw its cashless, friction-free payment experience as a positive differentiator from yellow taxis. The settlement does not require Uber to add an in-app tipping feature which allows riders to add a tip to their electronic bill.

The biggest change for drivers, inside and outside of California and Massachusetts, is that they cannot be deactivated from the Uber platform for failing to accept a minimum number of ride requests. Previously, drivers would receive emails or other forms of communication warning that they would be deactivated/fired if they did not raise their acceptance rate to at least 80 percent of all ride requests.

Drivers in California and Massachusetts will see more minor changes. More specifically, certain drivers in these states will receive some money form the settlement and will have the right to a new appeals panel. Out of the $100 million settlement, $84 million is the first part of the settlement and If Uber goes public, it will have to pay $16 million more. The distribution of the money that drivers receive will be based on a number of factors, but regardless of the factors, the total amount to each driver will range from $24.00 to $8,000.00.

The most significant aspect of the settlement is that drivers in California and Massachusetts get to form an appeals panel, through which drivers can appeal the company’s decision to deactivate them, and a driver association that serves in the place of a union but will not be legally recognized as one. So while there will be a remedy when a driver believes they were wrongfully deactivated, Uber will ultimately have the final say.

In the end, the Uber settlement gives some drivers a few dollars as a one-time payout, but still leaves them working as Uber employees in all but name. Since these lawsuits had the potential to force real change, it is hard to see this as their victory. In essence, Uber just paid through the nose to buy labor peace in California and Massachusetts.

The settlement completely abandons the very point of the lawsuit. The lawyers for the Uber drivers have long framed these cases as a crusade for employee rights. They defended the settlement, saying it was the best one possible given the uncertainties of continuing to trial. Anyone is the legal profession knows that lawsuits are always risky because the outcome is always uncertain. Lawsuits are also very costly. While Uber’s attorneys were undoubtedly paid very handsomely, the attorneys for the Uber drivers (approximately 385,000 of them) have had to pay the costs of litigating these cases to date all with the risk to them of not receiving a fee for its time and efforts. The attorneys for the Uber drivers are asking the judge for a 25 percent cut of the settlement, or about $21.75 million, to cover her team’s costs.

In my opinion, it seems that the lawyers for the Uber drivers are folding their cards in return for a fat fee and promises from Uber that it will make some minor changes to its driver policy. I am sure fighting Uber is a hard and arduous undertaking, but once you take case, a lawyer is supposed to do what is in the client's best interest and not their own....and certainly not where the opponent (Uber) makes out better than all of the parties. It is as if this settlement was a clear victory for Uber.

In the end, a settlement removes the biggest threat to Uber's Business model, while Uber drivers get a bit more protection by having less stringent rules before Uber can deactivate a driver and drivers are allowed to ask for tips from passengers. BIG DEAL......This is a settlement that is fair to drivers? NO WAY. NOT IN MY BOOK. The small amount of money that will be paid to drivers in California and Massachusetts is peanuts and not worth it. This lawsuit was supposed to be about vindicating the rights of Uber drivers, but a settlement of this nature does not accomplish that goal. All this settlement does is provide a big payday for the lawyers representing the Uber drivers. Yes, they worked extremely hard over the past 2.5 years, but in the end they will get about $21.75 million in legal fees from this case. This is a huge incentive for them to settle and the impetus to convenience their clients (the drivers) that the settlement will give them more rights and will vindicate their interests.

I have the utmost respect for the plaintiffs’ attorneys as they took a case and financed it all the way, but I believe they had a great case and would have won. I have been litigating cases involving the issue of employer-employee relationship in almost every forum in New York for the past 20 years and this is one of the most clear cut cases of employer employee relationship I have ever seen. So why settle, especially before the plaintiffs’ attorney even had the chance to make a motion for summary judgment asking the court to declare Uber's drivers to be employees as a matter of law? The answer is that the plaintiffs’ attorneys worked hard, paid money from their own pockets to litigate the case and they wanted to get paid.....and now they will....BUT the real issue of whether Uber's drivers are employees or independent contractors will remain unsettled.

What a shame for the drivers, because they really don't get anything here.....and what a shame for the legal profession because now it is just another case where the lawyers settle because money has that kind of effect on people. This degrades the legal profession....and kind of makes me ashamed to be a part of it. A lawyer is supposed to zealously represent the interests of their client (not their own interests). I apologize in advance to the attorneys for the drivers, but this case has turned into just another case for them to make money. It turns out that it was not about vindicating the rights of drivers. Each driver really did not have much to lose by continuing to litigate the case, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys had millions of dollars in legal fees to lose. This appears to be simply too much for them to risk. The drivers didn't have much to risk by continuing. This is a pathetic settlement that the drivers should reject as it is their case and they should demand more.

Sometimes you have to take a risk and sometimes that risk means taking a case all the way and get a decision. Yes, it would have been a big gamble for the plaintiffs’ attorneys and they did a great job thus far, but I felt so strongly about this case that if asked, I would have worked with them for free. After 20 years of practicing law, I still believe in justice...and in this case, justice was not served. Uber continues to operate with impunity, their business model survives and the drivers go on as usual, getting treated like cattle, when in fact they are as close to an employee of Uber as any case could possibly expose. Again, Uber wins, the lawyers win and the drivers, who are the represented parties, get nothing in the long run.

In the meantime, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen may refuse to approve the settlement until it provides real benefits and lower legal fees. Everything Judge Chen has said up until this point seems to suggest that he was looking forward to a jury trial in this case. The plaintiffs in Uber's case were seeking $3.4 billion, a fairly ridiculous sum but one they thought they were owed. Judge Chen could decide that $100 million isn't enough compensation, or that the reforms Uber is promising more transparency, an ability for drivers to solicit tips and challenge deactivations through arbitration, recognition from Uber of quasi-union "driver associations" don't even scratch the surface.

Until a court decides whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors, the debate will not end. I guess a new set of plaintiffs in other states will have to hope for a lawyer that is willing to take the risk of taking this type of case to trial and consider more than their own self interests in being compensated for their efforts rather than the cause they were supposed to be seeking, which is justice. In this case, once again, Uber is the clear winner.

Uber will pay $100 million to settle the biggest legal threat to its business, but are Drivers or Uber the real winner?????

It is crying shame to have settled this case. I am sure fighting Uber is a hard and arduous undertaking, but once you take case, a lawyer is supposed to do what is in the client's best interest and not their own....and certainly not where the opponent (Uber) makes out better than all of the parties. It is as if this settlement was a clear victory for Uber.

As we know, Uber has spent the last two and a half years embroiled in a major legal battle over its business model. The company considers its drivers to be independent contractors, but many of those drivers believe they were treated more like employees. Paying up to $100 million to settle class action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts removes the biggest threat to Uber's Business model. Drivers in those states will remain independent contractors rather than becoming employees. So who wins in all of this????? Certainly not the drivers. The small amount of money they will each receive will perhaps reimburse them for some of their past costs for gas and car maintenance, but Uber is not going to be paying any of these items to drivers in the future. The drivers get a bit more protection by having less stringent rules before Uber can deactivate a driver and drivers are allowed to ask for tips from passengers. BIG DEAL......This is a settlement that is fair to drivers? NO WAY. NOT IN MY BOOK. 

Uber get to keep its business prized model and gets to claim vindication by continuing business as usual. 100 Million to them is peanuts. So we know that Uber benefits the most, but who also benefits....the lawyers for the drivers. Class action cases of this nature are supposed to be about vindicating the rights of the drivers, but for the plaintiffs attorneys it has proven to be clearly about a big payday and mega buck. Yes, they worked extremely hard over the past 2.5 years, but in the end they will get about $25-$30 Million dollars in legal fees from this case. This is a huge incentive for them to settle and the impetus to convenience their clients (the drivers) that the settlement will give them more rights and will vindicate their interests.

I have the utmost respect for the plaintiffs’ attorneys as they took a case and financed it all the way, but I believe they had a great case and would have won. I have been litigating cases involving the issue of employer-employee relationship in almost every forum in New York for the past 20 years and this is one of the most clear cut cases of employer employee relationship I have ever seen. So why settle, especially before the plaintiffs’ attorney even had the chance to make a motion for summary judgment asking the court to declare Uber's drivers to be employees as a matter of law? The answer is that the plaintiffs’ attorneys worked hard, paid money from their own pockets to litigate the case and they wanted to get paid.....and now they will....BUT the real issue of whether Uber's drivers are employees or independent contractors will remain unsettled. 

In the interim, Uber, which doesn't really make money at all, will continue to save as much as 30% or so on labor costs, because independent contractors aren’t entitled to the same safety nets as traditional employees—i.e., benefits such as health insurance and minimum wage protection. They’re also responsible for paying their own business expenses. For Uber drivers, these include gas and car maintenance, which really add up.

What a shame for the drivers, because they really don't get anything here.....and what a shame for the legal profession because now it is just another case where the lawyers settle because money has that kind of effect on people. This degrades the legal profession....and kind of makes me ashamed to be a part of it. A lawyer is supposed to zealously represent the interests of their client (not their own interests). I apologize in advance too the attorneys for the drivers, but this case has turned into just another case to make money. It turns out that it was not about vindicating the rights of drivers. Each driver really did not have much to lose by continuing to litigate the case, but the plaintiffs attorneys had about $25-$30 Million dollars in legal fees to lose. This appears to be simply too much for them to risk. The drivers didn't  have much to risk by continuing. In the end, for the drivers who drove the most, around 10,000 drivers, they will receive around $8,000. For the rest, the more than 122,000 drivers who have driven less than 750 miles, they should expect an average of $24. This is a pathetic settlement that the drivers should reject as it is their case and they should demand more.

 

Sometimes you have to take a risk and sometimes that risk means taking a case all the way and get a decision. Yes, it would have been a big gamble for the plaintiffs attorneys and they did a great job thus far, but I felt so strongly about this case that if asked, I would have worked with them for free. After 20 years of practicing law, I still believe in justice...and in this case, justice was not served. Uber continues to operate with impunity, their business model survives and the drivers go on as usual, getting treated like cattle, when in fact they are as close to an employee of Uber as any case could possibly expose. Again, Uber wins, the lawyers win and the driver, who are the represented parties, get nothing in the long run. 

The settlement represents a huge win for Uber. If the lawsuit had gone to trial, and a jury decided that drivers indeed deserved to be full employees, then Uber could have suddenly found itself responsible for all sorts of extra costs, from Social Security payments to minimum wage requirements. Instead, drivers will stay "independent", and Uber keeps its costs low. Don't be surprised if you don't see any Uber drivers celebrating in the streets as a result of this settlement. Many were hoping for a much different outcome.

I believe it is obvious that the plaintiffs/drivers who wanted to be employees are going to be disappointed and they should be. Although the lawsuit was settled, for the drivers, Uber really won this case.

But drivers could end up eventually coming out on top, depending on whether the settlement is approved by US District Court Judge Edward Chen, and everything he has said up until this point seems to suggest that he was looking forward to a jury trial. The plaintiffs in Uber's case were seeking $3.4 billion, a fairly ridiculous sum but one they thought they were owed. Judge Chen could decide that $100 million isn't enough compensation, or that the reforms Uber is promising more transparency, an ability for drivers to solicit tips and challenge deactivations through arbitration, recognition from Uber of quasi-union "driver associations" don't even scratch the surface.

Another potential poise result from this settlement is that without any jurisprudence on the most critical issue of employer-employee relationship, there is nothing preventing others from championing the cause in the future. The case would be settled and not decided. Until a court decides whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors, the debate will not end. I guess a new set of plaintiffs in other states will have to hope for a lawyer that is willing to take the risk of taking this type of case to trial and consider more than their own self interests in being compensated for their efforts rather than the cause they were supposed to be seeking, which is justice.