Is that a death knell?
Unions will kill Uber.
Someone needs to be exploited for it to work, and if its not the drivers it has to be the customers.
The customers of course might have some choices, so Uber dies.
Uber in Australia has been pushed into making public the criteria that can get a driver kicked out. The “deactivation policy” went live last week, with Uber saying it's in response to complaints from drivers. Uber Australia's Mike Abbott blogs that “we don’t always do a good job working with our driver-partners to explain our …
Could be. Plus there's the problem that it makes Uber look less and less like a ride broker and more like an employer and a regular taxi firm.
In which case it will become harder for them to avoid all the regulatory overhead associated with normal taxi companies, the thing that they've been desperate to avoid.
That's the problem with the 'sharing' economy. As people start trying to earn a living from it the business starts looking like an exploitative employer, not a friendly broker.
Uber used to be about sharing your drive to work. Is it still possible to use it that way, or do they now expect you to be a full time driver for them?
I still don't understand how this whole concept can be described as ride sharing.
Ride sharing would be me and a colleague who lived near me sharing a car into work to cut costs and mean I only have to drive every other day.
Picking up a person from a location you would not normally be travelling to then conveying them to another location you would not normally be travelling to in exchange for cash is a taxi service.
Think Zip car. You call them up they deliver the car and you pay for the time . They even pay for the gas and insurance.
Still not ride sharing - that's called "renting a car."
PS: You ARE paying for the gas and insurance. What you meant to say was that they don't charge you *separately* for gas and insurance.
It's as if they consider their drivers to be robots.
But that's the problem for Uber, isn't it, they are desperate to insist that they don't "employ" drivers, they just "facilitate" getting drivers and passengers together, so they are trying to avoid any of the usual terms associated with the parting of ways between an employer and employee.
They could have used "terminated" but perhaps that has even worse connotations? :)
I heard the local Uber manager on the radio this morning argue that their driver vetting procedure was "better" than the one our Land Transport Agency mandates.
This despite the Land Transport Agency making it quite clear that Uber were breaking the law.
That must be what chutzpah is I suppose.
Prison might be useful as an attitude adjustment for some Uber executives. At this point, I don't care for what. Make something up if needed. Tax evasion worked for Al Capone.
Then again, while inside, they'd likely come up with some online booking service for the criminals to use. Or they'd meet their next batch of junior executive recruits. So maybe it's not a good idea.