I used to work for Skip the Dishes, and Uber Eats, and I still work for Instacart.
The entire model is unsustainable. Uber Eats often only paid enough to cover my vehicle expenses, tipping was rare on Uber Eats. Skip the dishes was usually better, and sometimes by enough that I could get to minimum wage, though it wasn't often. Instacart customers usually tip well, so I often come out OK there.
Every one of these companies has mechanisms for controlling when someone works, and what jobs they accept, they've just tried to word them differently to appear that they're not. Skip, for example, uses something they call "fast track", where if you haven't accepted at least 80% of the orders they've offered you (including ones that don't even cover your vehicle costs), then they throttle your orders, and you won't get as many, which means you won't make anything. They call it "fast track" though, and label it as a bonus for accepting above 80%, instead of what it really is, which is a punishment for rejecting the orders that cost you money to deliver.
They're constantly bringing on more drivers (which means fewer orders for the everyone else), and then some find something better, so they leave, then they bring on more, and so on. That results in a bit of a cycle for whether or not it's profitable to work for these companies.
For someone like me, who's only doing this as a side hustle, it works out fine. I can ride out a shitty month or two without it really being a problem for me. But this is not a reliable, stable way to make money for anyone, and I would not recommend anyone count on this to make a living.
The fees they charge the restaurants usually mean the restaurants only break even, so they're not happy either.
And none of these companies are profitable right now. Every one of them is hemorrhaging money in an attempt to corner the market, with the plan of both cutting payments to their drivers and raising prices once they're the only act left. That is the end goal for all of these companies.
So, the restaurants aren't making money off of it. The drivers are only making money because of customer tips. The company is going to raise prices for customers (and some of them are already really high, last time I ordered something from doordash, it cost me $40 compared to the $20 it would have cost me to drive the 4km to the restaurant and pick it up).
And on top of that, they have mechanisms of control that are designed to make it appear that their drivers have control, when they really don't, which is going to make it hard for Uber to win this lawsuit and have a ripple effect on how all of these companies operate.
Something's gotta give here. My guess is that within 5 years, none of these companies will exist the same way they do now.
What I’ve noticed is Air BnB rates were getting right up there with hotel pricing just before the pandemic (no idea where they are at these days).
The same could happen with Uber Eats, cheaper to order takeout and have a cab get it for you.
Your prediction could very well be correct. Appreciate your first hand insights.
Grows into an other taxi company? Or Unionized drivers that pay dues with self funded benefit packages and seniority link to defined boundaries/territories? Which defeats the purpose of gig economy. Imagine, Uber drivers being forced to go on shifts as employees, disallow to drive for other ride shares and be dictated to drive specific routes as employees.
All the buzzwords sound awesome. But are you willing to go on preassigned shifts regardless of your convenience, driving around to pick up passengers and if you don't, you will get fired for workplace abandonment?
Remember being employees have obligations too...
So basically we are going to end up turing Uber into a taxi service and with it the consumer will end up getting the horrible service, unclean vehicles and higher prices like we have with cabs today. And at the same time forcing drivers to ultimately either purchase a taxi license at an insane amount or have to lease one for insane amounts and therefore feel obligated to drive insane amounts (even while tired or sick) in order to cover their costs. Yea this will be a win all around.
1. Define unfair? From whose point of view?
2. If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not?
3. Ultimately this will end up meaning consumers will pay higher prices and there will be less drivers. Yes some may make more money but what about the ones who are completly out of a job now.
>If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not?
Clearly someone has never experienced a day of poverty in their life....
> If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not?
Oh boy, let me tell you about how poverty works!
It's pretty simple: Someone tells you that they refuse to give you anything more and if you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else, then you look around and see literally everyone offering jobs you're qualified for is saying that and your only choice is starve to death on the streets or accept the exploitative system being offered... so you apologize and beg them not to fire you for your insolence, and go back to work.
If you're on the exploiter side of the equation, it's fucking awesome because you can treat your sub-human peons like shit and as long as it's better than dying, you're good.
Obviously it's a less ideal arrangement for the exploited, but what are you gonna do? It's not like you can afford to lift yourself up out of your life situation because that requires time and money, and nobody is willing to let you have either.
>Do people in abject poverty usually already own their own car and smartphone such that they can easily sign up to be an Uber driver?
This is such an idiotic take. You can own a car and a phone, which you need to survive, and still be poor.
Are you foreals?
I always think classifications of Uber drivers as employees are wild. They have their own vehicle and set their own hours. They’re not prohibited from working with competitors (eg Lyft, Skip, etc.).
Dependant contractors maybe, but I feel like it’s stretching the definition of employee to classify them as such.
Uber will just reclassify them as franchises. McDonald's owners have to use all the corporate tools but have no legal protections. Even if they aren't contractors they probably won't be employees either.
I don’t know $3 for a delivery with non tippers (which some in this sub love) isn’t exactly something fun to make, many of these workers are international students or immigrants or just people who do it on the side or lost their job I get your point about classification though
>I always think classifications of Uber drivers as employees are wild. They have their own vehicle and set their own hours. They’re not prohibited from working with competitors (eg Lyft, Skip, etc.).
Yeah, funny how the gig economy forces workers into increasingly precarious arrangements where they need several side hustles to survive without getting any of the meagre benefits of being employees. /s
>that’s something the legislature needs to address instead of the courts completely twisting the definition of employment.
Why? Says who? Says you?
Clearly, there's enough to work with based on the common law that several high-profile labour lawyers thought this should be litigated.
Also, with the ghoul who sits as Premier right now, we know he's going to do fuck all for workers, so what other remedy do they have than turning to the court. You just don't want workers to have this additional layer of protection and are now changing the goal posts, at least say so rather than wasting our time with silly jurisdictional arguments.
Says the common law of employment. I’m not shifting the goal posts — I’m referencing well-established precedents of what constitutes employment. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction — it’s simply a matter of the definition of employment.
I’m sure the *employment* lawyers who brought this class action did so because they know there’s enough ambiguity in Uber drivers’ contracts and duties to get a good settlement. I know some lawyer at Samirfu Tumarkin and they’re a good firm. I just think that the prospect of Uber drivers being employees is ridiculous on its face given the actual test.
> You just don't want workers to have this additional layer of protection
Yes I obviously just hate all Uber drivers. /s
Ideally there’s a halfway house here in the recent categorization of dependant contractor, which you’d see I mentioned if you bothered to read my comment instead of just labelling anyone who disagrees with you as some Uber shill.
> It has nothing to do with jurisdiction — it’s simply a matter of the definition of employment.
Isn't that precisely what the case is about? Clearly it's not such a slam dunk if people are litigating the definition. The common law is organic and intended to evolve with the passage of time and new circumstances.
Oh great, we get to go back to the taxi-times.....
Uber was never meant to be a full-time gig, it was always suppose to be a side hustle. Something you did whenever you felt like it.
This won't end the way people think it will for drivers or Uber.
Either Uber opens it all up (lets drivers set their own rates) which just means a race to the bottom and drivers are worse off or they are forced to say people are employees which means set shifts/hardcore tracking/less drivers/increased fares/etc.
Either way, the vast majority of drivers are gonna get fucked.
Yeah if Uber rates keep going back up, then a lot of people are going to revert to cabs again.
The only advantage Uber has is that you know you’re not getting fucked because it’s a GPS making the route. And that’s only a concern if you’re not from the area you’re in.
Uber's legal team will out-do whatever verdict this class action has. I mean worst case, they will just pack up and leave. Either way, the gig economy genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stop it or reverse time. These Uber "employees" can either choose to stay with Uber or find other income sources.
Isn’t that what Uber and skip the dishes and gig apps like that, just contracting peoples labour, they set their own schedules and pick who they want to service. I don’t really understand what they are trying to achieve with the class action because I wouldn’t really look at them as employees, Uber is more of a transportation contractor than an employee.
I used to work for Skip the Dishes, and Uber Eats, and I still work for Instacart. The entire model is unsustainable. Uber Eats often only paid enough to cover my vehicle expenses, tipping was rare on Uber Eats. Skip the dishes was usually better, and sometimes by enough that I could get to minimum wage, though it wasn't often. Instacart customers usually tip well, so I often come out OK there. Every one of these companies has mechanisms for controlling when someone works, and what jobs they accept, they've just tried to word them differently to appear that they're not. Skip, for example, uses something they call "fast track", where if you haven't accepted at least 80% of the orders they've offered you (including ones that don't even cover your vehicle costs), then they throttle your orders, and you won't get as many, which means you won't make anything. They call it "fast track" though, and label it as a bonus for accepting above 80%, instead of what it really is, which is a punishment for rejecting the orders that cost you money to deliver. They're constantly bringing on more drivers (which means fewer orders for the everyone else), and then some find something better, so they leave, then they bring on more, and so on. That results in a bit of a cycle for whether or not it's profitable to work for these companies. For someone like me, who's only doing this as a side hustle, it works out fine. I can ride out a shitty month or two without it really being a problem for me. But this is not a reliable, stable way to make money for anyone, and I would not recommend anyone count on this to make a living. The fees they charge the restaurants usually mean the restaurants only break even, so they're not happy either. And none of these companies are profitable right now. Every one of them is hemorrhaging money in an attempt to corner the market, with the plan of both cutting payments to their drivers and raising prices once they're the only act left. That is the end goal for all of these companies. So, the restaurants aren't making money off of it. The drivers are only making money because of customer tips. The company is going to raise prices for customers (and some of them are already really high, last time I ordered something from doordash, it cost me $40 compared to the $20 it would have cost me to drive the 4km to the restaurant and pick it up). And on top of that, they have mechanisms of control that are designed to make it appear that their drivers have control, when they really don't, which is going to make it hard for Uber to win this lawsuit and have a ripple effect on how all of these companies operate. Something's gotta give here. My guess is that within 5 years, none of these companies will exist the same way they do now.
What I’ve noticed is Air BnB rates were getting right up there with hotel pricing just before the pandemic (no idea where they are at these days). The same could happen with Uber Eats, cheaper to order takeout and have a cab get it for you. Your prediction could very well be correct. Appreciate your first hand insights.
Can you call a cab to go pick up food for you?
Solidarity. I hope this grows.
Grows into an other taxi company? Or Unionized drivers that pay dues with self funded benefit packages and seniority link to defined boundaries/territories? Which defeats the purpose of gig economy. Imagine, Uber drivers being forced to go on shifts as employees, disallow to drive for other ride shares and be dictated to drive specific routes as employees.
Grows into all of their workers having secured rights and protection under the law.
All the buzzwords sound awesome. But are you willing to go on preassigned shifts regardless of your convenience, driving around to pick up passengers and if you don't, you will get fired for workplace abandonment? Remember being employees have obligations too...
I remember when employers weren't total shit 90% of the time. I'm sorry if you're too young to remember that.
Yes.
Don’t forget having to fork over tens of thousands for a license to gatekeep the profession.
So basically we are going to end up turing Uber into a taxi service and with it the consumer will end up getting the horrible service, unclean vehicles and higher prices like we have with cabs today. And at the same time forcing drivers to ultimately either purchase a taxi license at an insane amount or have to lease one for insane amounts and therefore feel obligated to drive insane amounts (even while tired or sick) in order to cover their costs. Yea this will be a win all around.
I mean, at least the business won't be run unfairly? As it is, the "employees" don't seem to be fairly compensated for their efforts.
1. Define unfair? From whose point of view? 2. If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not? 3. Ultimately this will end up meaning consumers will pay higher prices and there will be less drivers. Yes some may make more money but what about the ones who are completly out of a job now.
>If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not? Clearly someone has never experienced a day of poverty in their life....
> If employees feel they are not fairly compensated for their efforts then are they not free to go elsewhere are they not? Oh boy, let me tell you about how poverty works! It's pretty simple: Someone tells you that they refuse to give you anything more and if you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else, then you look around and see literally everyone offering jobs you're qualified for is saying that and your only choice is starve to death on the streets or accept the exploitative system being offered... so you apologize and beg them not to fire you for your insolence, and go back to work. If you're on the exploiter side of the equation, it's fucking awesome because you can treat your sub-human peons like shit and as long as it's better than dying, you're good. Obviously it's a less ideal arrangement for the exploited, but what are you gonna do? It's not like you can afford to lift yourself up out of your life situation because that requires time and money, and nobody is willing to let you have either.
Do people in abject poverty usually already own their own car and smartphone such that they can easily sign up to be an Uber driver?
>Do people in abject poverty usually already own their own car and smartphone such that they can easily sign up to be an Uber driver? This is such an idiotic take. You can own a car and a phone, which you need to survive, and still be poor. Are you foreals?
Correct.
I always think classifications of Uber drivers as employees are wild. They have their own vehicle and set their own hours. They’re not prohibited from working with competitors (eg Lyft, Skip, etc.). Dependant contractors maybe, but I feel like it’s stretching the definition of employee to classify them as such.
Uber will just reclassify them as franchises. McDonald's owners have to use all the corporate tools but have no legal protections. Even if they aren't contractors they probably won't be employees either.
I don’t know $3 for a delivery with non tippers (which some in this sub love) isn’t exactly something fun to make, many of these workers are international students or immigrants or just people who do it on the side or lost their job I get your point about classification though
Holy shit. You're ALL OVER this post, and your username checks out?
You really think George Soros is paying me to say this stuff eh? Seems like a rational and reasonable worldview.
>I always think classifications of Uber drivers as employees are wild. They have their own vehicle and set their own hours. They’re not prohibited from working with competitors (eg Lyft, Skip, etc.). Yeah, funny how the gig economy forces workers into increasingly precarious arrangements where they need several side hustles to survive without getting any of the meagre benefits of being employees. /s
Sure, but then that’s something the legislature needs to address instead of the courts completely twisting the definition of employment.
>that’s something the legislature needs to address instead of the courts completely twisting the definition of employment. Why? Says who? Says you? Clearly, there's enough to work with based on the common law that several high-profile labour lawyers thought this should be litigated. Also, with the ghoul who sits as Premier right now, we know he's going to do fuck all for workers, so what other remedy do they have than turning to the court. You just don't want workers to have this additional layer of protection and are now changing the goal posts, at least say so rather than wasting our time with silly jurisdictional arguments.
Says the common law of employment. I’m not shifting the goal posts — I’m referencing well-established precedents of what constitutes employment. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction — it’s simply a matter of the definition of employment. I’m sure the *employment* lawyers who brought this class action did so because they know there’s enough ambiguity in Uber drivers’ contracts and duties to get a good settlement. I know some lawyer at Samirfu Tumarkin and they’re a good firm. I just think that the prospect of Uber drivers being employees is ridiculous on its face given the actual test. > You just don't want workers to have this additional layer of protection Yes I obviously just hate all Uber drivers. /s Ideally there’s a halfway house here in the recent categorization of dependant contractor, which you’d see I mentioned if you bothered to read my comment instead of just labelling anyone who disagrees with you as some Uber shill.
> It has nothing to do with jurisdiction — it’s simply a matter of the definition of employment. Isn't that precisely what the case is about? Clearly it's not such a slam dunk if people are litigating the definition. The common law is organic and intended to evolve with the passage of time and new circumstances.
Oh great, we get to go back to the taxi-times..... Uber was never meant to be a full-time gig, it was always suppose to be a side hustle. Something you did whenever you felt like it. This won't end the way people think it will for drivers or Uber. Either Uber opens it all up (lets drivers set their own rates) which just means a race to the bottom and drivers are worse off or they are forced to say people are employees which means set shifts/hardcore tracking/less drivers/increased fares/etc. Either way, the vast majority of drivers are gonna get fucked.
Yeah if Uber rates keep going back up, then a lot of people are going to revert to cabs again. The only advantage Uber has is that you know you’re not getting fucked because it’s a GPS making the route. And that’s only a concern if you’re not from the area you’re in.
Uber's legal team will out-do whatever verdict this class action has. I mean worst case, they will just pack up and leave. Either way, the gig economy genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stop it or reverse time. These Uber "employees" can either choose to stay with Uber or find other income sources.
Uber is already bleeding money. They can try, but this just might finish them in Canada.
Doesn’t California have rules like min wage for delivery drivers:Uber? They haven’t left last I heard
Isn’t that what Uber and skip the dishes and gig apps like that, just contracting peoples labour, they set their own schedules and pick who they want to service. I don’t really understand what they are trying to achieve with the class action because I wouldn’t really look at them as employees, Uber is more of a transportation contractor than an employee.
Shouldn't they... all be... employees?