There were a couple of interesting articles about Uber earlier this week. In one, Uber’s push into the corporate market was mentioned, but along the way it was stated that Uber has 27,000 employees – and since drivers aren’t employed, that’s not including drivers! What an amazingly large entity it is, and yet it still lost US$5 billion last quarter!
The other article drew attention to the push in some US states for drivers to be regarded as employees instead of independent contractors. Apparently there’s already a minimum pay requirement in New York City. I don’t know what all the implications of this are under US law (it doesn’t seem to go as far as requiring drivers to be “employees”) but on one level it seems somewhat difficult to reconcile with Uber’s business model where drivers log on and off as they choose, thus setti
ng their own hours.
Presumably if the NYC rule is confined to requiring a minimum rate of earnings, then Uber and similar entities could adapt to it by controlling the number of drivers who can log on at any time. This wouldn’t be consistent with the Uber business model of course (which relies on a large pool of drivers), and would reduce the flexibility of drivers, which many of them like, but the alternative of allowing drivers to log on at any time they wish and collect an hourly rate would hardly seem to make economic sense. Or is it that the hourly rate only applies for the time during which the driver actually has a job?
Similar issues exist in Australia, where the characterisation has been in terms of “employer/employee”. I suppose the real issue is that if some sort of regulation is needed (but is it?), then the traditional full on “employer/employee” relationship with all its attendant complexities isn’t appropriate. Is there scope for “middle ground”? A code of conduct perhaps?
Musings and Mutterings 