company:uber

  • The Gnawing Anxiety of Having an Algorithm as a Boss - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-26/the-gnawing-anxiety-of-having-an-algorithm-as-a-boss

    I recently got the internet in my apartment fixed, and my technician had an unusual request. I’d get an automated call after he left asking me how satisfied I was with the service, he explained, and he wanted me to rate him 9 out of 10. I asked why, and he said there was a glitch with the system that recorded any 10 rating as a 1, and it was important for him to keep his rating up.

    Since then, a couple of people have told me that technicians working for the company have been making this exact request for at least two years. A representative for Spectrum, my internet provider, said they were worrying over nothing. The company had moved away from the 10-point rating system, he said, adding that customer feedback isn’t “tied to individual technicians’ compensation.”

    But even if the Spectrum glitch exists only in the lore of cable repairmen, the anxiety it’s causing them is telling. Increasingly, workers are impacted by automated decision-making systems, which also affects people who read the news, or apply for loans, or shop in stores. It only makes sense that they’d try to bend those systems to their advantage.

    There exist at least two separate academic papers with the title “Folk Theories of Social Feeds,” detailing how Facebook users divine what its algorithm wants, then try to use those theories to their advantage.

    People with algorithms for bosses have particular incentive to push back. Last month, a local television station in Washington covered Uber drivers who conspire to turn off their apps simultaneously in order to trick its system into raising prices.

    Alex Rosenblat, the author of Uberland, told me that these acts of digital disobedience are essentially futile in the long run. Technology centralizes power and information in a way that overwhelms mere humans. “You might think you’re manipulating the system,” she says, but in reality “you’re working really hard to keep up with a system that is constantly experimenting on you.”

    Compared to pricing algorithms, customer ratings of the type that worried my repairman should be fairly straightforward. Presumably it’s just a matter of gathering data and calculating an average. But online ratings are a questionable way to judge people even if the data they’re based on are pristine—and they probably aren’t. Academics have shown that customer ratings reflect racial biases. Complaints about a product or service can be interpreted as commentary about the person who provided it, rather than the service itself. And companies like Uber require drivers to maintain such high ratings that, in effect, any review that isn’t maximally ecstatic is a request for punitive measures.

    #Travail #Surveillance #Algorithme #Stress #Société_contrôle

  • Uber’s Path of Destruction - American Affairs Journal
    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/ubers-path-of-destruction

    Since it began operations in 2010, Uber has grown to the point where it now collects over $45 billion in gross passenger revenue, and it has seized a major share of the urban car service market. But the widespread belief that it is a highly innovative and successful company has no basis in economic reality.

    An examination of Uber’s economics suggests that it has no hope of ever earning sustainable urban car service profits in competitive markets. Its costs are simply much higher than the market is willing to pay, as its nine years of massive losses indicate. Uber not only lacks powerful competitive advantages, but it is actually less efficient than the competitors it has been driving out of business.

  • The Quiet Death of the Gig Economy – FutureSin – Medium
    https://medium.com/futuresin/the-quiet-death-of-the-gig-economy-126f62014a4d

    Michael K. SpencerFollow Jan 7

    Disruption, blissfully happy digital nomads, the sharing economy and oh yes — the “Gig Economy” sounded good on paper, but it seems to not be all it was thought it might become.

    As the U.S. economy finally and painfully slowly recovered from the great recession of 2008, the supposed unemployment rate fell to record low levels in 2018.

    Alan Krueger (Princeton University) and Larry Katz (Harvard University) have dialed down their estimates of the gig economy’s growth by 60%-80%.

    According to Guy Berger on LinkedIn, Krueger and Katz published the (at the time) most rigorous analysis of alternative work arrangements. Their conclusion was that such arrangements (of which a minority are online platform gig work) had grown significantly between 2005 and 2015. Their estimate was its share of the US workforce had grown by a whopping 5 percentage points. (7–8 million workers.). Well guess what, that trend now seems to have reversed as the economy recovered.

    With Lyft and Uber set to go public with IPOs this year, that to be part-time drivers with them is somehow desirable or helpful to “make ends meet” has all but dried up, right before supposed autonomous vehicles and self-driving cars start to hit the streets in various ways.

    Indeed there does not seem to be much sharing and caring in the ruthless world of Uber, amid legal battles and drivers who make less than minimum wage and are like grunt contract workers of the worst kind, totally unprotected.

    In a world where Amazon is miserably harsh to its bottom feeder workers, why the heck did we once think the ‘gig economy’ was some glorious alternative workforce? Why the ‘gig’ economy may not be the workforce of the future after all, with rising minimum wages and a small bump in wage growth in 2019. I personally think the American labor force is screwed with a skill-shortage coming the likes of which we’ve rarely seen, but that’s another story for another day.

    From Uber to TaskRabbit to YourMechanic, so-called gig work — task-oriented work offered by online apps — has been promoted as providing the flexibility and independence that traditional jobs don’t offer. But in 2019, if anything they seem like scams for the destitute, desperate and debt-ridden. I feel a bit nervous about how manipulative an Uber driver can be just to earn an extra buck. Maybe it’s not a Gig economy but kind of like another form of slavery given a pretty name.

    Horror stories of what it’s really like to do delivery work also give you a second guess that this Gig Economy isn’t just disruptive to make these companies rich, it’s a sham and harmful to these workers. I feel as if Silicon Valley has duped us, yet again.

    Nobody could have thought or imagined that doing a small gig in exchange for an hourly payment could become someone’s full-time job. It’s a bit like career-death, you get used to the work-lifestyle perks of the so called flexibility until you realize just how little you made the year you side-hustled in the Gig Economy, or became a freelancer or attempted to be self-employed. It’s risky folks, and I don’t recommend it for a minute.

    When you need to bring food to the table you are on the fringe of the labor force, the painful predicament of being a Gig Economy minion is your everyday, until it becomes your new normal. Until you lose hope to up-skill or change your career path. Labor is tiresome, but when the fat cats get rich on the backs of people who need the money, you know American capitalism has invented another scam to profit. That’s precisely why the Gig Economy has to die.

    Crypto and the Gig Economy seem hot in a recession, but the reality is that lovely expansion of alternative work seems a nice response to the weak US labor market, when job seekers didn’t have many options. But now with the labor market in a much healthier state for a few more months, more conventional jobs have rebounded. The implication may be that we’ll see these kinds of jobs proliferate again during the next downturn. Bitcoin and side-hustles, it doesn’t feel very sustainable.

    The “gig” economy was supposed to be an opportunity for entrepreneurs to be their own boss. But if you have to deal with companies like Uber, you might end up getting screwed royally. For the hundreds of people who use services like Uber, TaskRabbit or Turo to earn their livelihood, there’s no thing as benefits, paid leave or basic worker rights. That’s not an ethical solution for people living on the edge.

    Companies like TaskRabbit make a fortune by extracting commission in exchange for connecting consumers across the country with reliable people in their neighborhood who will happily take care of their burdensome chores. But is it even ethical? The app-economy is a feudal use of technology and downright as evil as any capitalistic scheme you might want to devise to imprison people in impossible situations.

    The Gig Economy was a myth and a scam, and Silicon Valley needs to be held more accountable with regulation. Alan Krueger of Princeton University and Larry Katz of Harvard should actually be apologizing, not revising their estimates. As of 2020, universal basic income sounds more reliable than an exploitative Gig Economy.

    The gig economy was supposed to be the future of work, but it ended up hurting more than it helped, and we left it. Just as we should kill Uber.

    #USA économie #droits_sociaux #platform_capitalism

  • Revolt of the gig workers: How delivery rage reached a tipping point - SFChronicle.com
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Revolt-of-the-gig-workers-How-delivery-rage-13605726.php

    Gig workers are fighting back.

    By their name, you might think independent contractors are a motley crew — geographically scattered, with erratic paychecks and tattered safety nets. They report to faceless software subroutines rather than human bosses. Most gig workers toil alone as they ferry passengers, deliver food and perform errands.

    But in recent weeks, some of these app-wielding workers have joined forces to effect changes by the multibillion-dollar companies and powerful algorithms that control their working conditions.

    Last week, Instacart shoppers wrung payment concessions from the grocery delivery company, which had been using customer tips to subsidize what it paid them. After outcries by workers on social media, in news reports and through online petitions, San Francisco’s Instacart said it had been “misguided.” It now adds tips on top of its base pay — as most customers and shoppers thought they should be — and will retroactively compensate workers who were stiffed on tips.

    New York this year became the first U.S. city to implement a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft, which now must pay drivers at least $17.22 an hour after expenses ($26.51 before expenses). Lyft, which sued over the requirement, last week gave in to driver pressure to implement it.

    For two years, drivers held rallies, released research, sent thousands of letters and calls to city officials, and gathered 16,000 petition signature among themselves. The Independent Drivers Guild, a union-affiliated group that represents New York ride-hail drivers and spearheaded the campaign, predicted per-driver pay boosts of up to $9,600 a year.

    That follows some other hard-fought worker crusades, such as when they persuaded Uber to finally add tipping to its app in 2017, a move triggered by several phenomena: a string of corporate scandals, the fact that rival Lyft had offered tipping from the get-go, and a class-action lawsuit seeking employment status for workers.

    “We’ll probably start to see more gig workers organizing as they realize that enough negative publicity for the companies can make something change,” said Alexandrea Ravenelle, an assistant sociology professor at New York’s Mercy College and author of “Hustle and Gig: Struggling and Surviving in the Sharing Economy.” “But companies will keep trying to push the envelope to pay workers as little as possible.”

    The current political climate, with tech giants such as Facebook and Google on hot seats over privacy, abuse of customer data and other issues, has helped the workers’ quests.

    “We’re at a moment of reckoning for tech companies,” said Alex Rosenblat, a technology ethnographer at New York’s Data & Society Research Institute and author of “Uberland: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work.” “There’s a techlash, a broader understanding that tech companies have to be held accountable as political institutions rather than neutral forces for good.”

    The climate also includes more consumer awareness of labor issues in the on-demand economy. “People are realizing that you don’t just jump in an Uber and don’t have to think about who’s driving you and what they make,” Ravenelle said. “There’s a lot more attention to gig workers’ plight.”

    Instacart customers were dismayed to discover that their tips were not going to workers on top of their pay as a reward for good service.

    Sage Wilson, a spokesman for Working Washington, a labor-backed group that helped with the Instacart shoppers’ campaign, said many more gig workers have emerged with stories of similar experiences on other apps.

    “Pay transparency really seems to be an issue across many of these platforms,” he said. “I almost wonder if it’s part of the reason why these companies are building black box algorithmic pay models in the first place (so) you might not even know right away if you got a pay cut until you start seeing the weekly totals trending down.”

    Cases in point: DoorDash and Amazon also rifle the tip jar to subsidize contractors’ base pay, as Instacart did. DoorDash defended this, saying its pay model “provides transparency, consistency, and predictability” and has increased both satisfaction and retention of its “Dashers.”

    But Kristen Anderson of Concord, a social worker who works part-time for DoorDash to help with student loans, said that was not her experience. Her pay dropped dramatically after DoorDash started appropriating tips in 2017, she said. “Originally it was worth my time and now it’s not,” she said. “It’s frustrating.”

    Debi LaBell of San Carlos, who does weekend work for Instacart on top of a full-time job, has organized with others online over the tips issue.

    “This has been a maddening, frustrating and, at times, incredibly disheartening experience,” said Debi LaBell of San Carlos, who does weekend work for Instacart on top of a full-time job. “When I first started doing Instacart, I loved getting in my car to head to my first shop. These past few months, it has taken everything that I have to get motivated enough to do my shift.”

    Before each shopping trip, she hand-wrote notes to all her customers explaining the tips issue. She and other shoppers congregated online both to vent and to organize.

    Her hope now is that Instacart will invite shoppers like her to hear their experiences and ideas.

    There’s poetic justice in the fact that the same internet that allows gig companies to create widely dispersed marketplaces provided gig workers space to find solidarity with one another.

    “It’s like the internet taketh and giveth,” said Eric Lloyd, an attorney at the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents management, including some gig companies he wouldn’t name, in labor cases. “The internet gave rise to this whole new economy, giving businesses a way to build really innovative models, and it’s given workers new ways to advance their rights.”

    For California gig workers, even more changes are on the horizon in the wake of a ground-breaking California Supreme Court decision last April that redefined when to classify workers as employees versus independent contractors.

    Gig companies, labor leaders and lawmakers are holding meetings in Sacramento to thrash out legislative responses to the Dynamex decision. Options could range from more workers getting employment status to gig companies offering flexible benefits. Whatever happens, it’s sure to upend the status quo.

    Rather than piecemeal enforcement through litigation, arbitration and various government agencies such as unemployment agencies, it makes sense to come up with overall standards, Rosenblat said.

    “There’s a big need for comprehensive standards with an understanding of all the trade-offs,” she said. “We’re at a tipping point for change.”

    Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: csaid@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @csaid

    #USA #Kalifornien #Gig-Economy #Ausbeutung

  • Connecticut legislators to consider minimum pay for Uber and Lyft drivers - Connecticut Post
    https://www.ctpost.com/politics/article/Connecticut-legislators-to-consider-minimum-pay-13608071.php

    By Emilie Munson, February 11, 2019 - Prompted by growing numbers of frustrated Uber and Lyft drivers, lawmakers will hold a hearing on establishing minimum pay for app-based drivers.

    After three separate legislative proposals regarding pay for drivers flooded the Labor and Public Employees Committee, the committee will raise the concept of driver earnings as a bill, said state Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, who chairs the committee, on Friday night.

    A coalition of Uber and Lyft drivers from New Haven has been pressuring lawmakers to pass a pay standard, following New York City’s landmark minimum pay ordinance for app-based drivers approved in December. The legislation, which set an earnings floor of $17.22 an hour for the independent contractors, took effect on Feb. 1.

    Connecticut drivers have no minimum pay guarantees.

    Guillermo Estrella, who drives for Uber, worked about 60 hours per week last year and received $25,422.65 in gross pay. His pay stub doesn’t reflect how much Estrella paid for insurance, gas, oil changes and wear-and-tear on his car. Factor those expenses in, and the Branford resident said his yearly take-home earnings were about $18,000 last year.

    Estrella and other New Haven drivers have suggested bill language to cap the portion of riders’ fares that Uber and Lyft can take at 25 percent, with the remaining 75 percent heading to drivers’ pockets. The idea has already received pushback from Uber, which said it was unrealistic given their current pay structure.

    Connecticut legislators have suggested two other models for regulating driver pay. State Sen. Steve Cassano, D-Manchester, filed a bill to set a minimum pay rate per mile and per minute for drivers. His bill has not assigned numbers to those minimums yet.

    “What (drivers) were making when Uber started and got its name, they are not making that anymore,” said Cassano. “The company is taking advantage of the success of the company. I understand that to a point, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of the drivers.”

    State Rep. Peter Tercyak, D-New Britain, proposed legislation that says if drivers’ earnings do not amount to hourly minimum wage payments, Uber or Lyft should have to kick in the difference. Connecticut’s minimum wage is now $10.10, although Democrats are making a strong push this year to raise it.

    As lawmakers consider these proposals, they will confront issues raised by the growing “gig economy”: a clash between companies seeking thousands of flexible, independent contractors and a workforce that wants the benefits and rights of traditional, paid employment.

    Some Democrats at the Capitol support the changes that favor drivers.

    “I thought it was important to make sure our labor laws are keeping up with the changes we are seeing in this emerging gig economy, that we have sufficient safeguards to make sure that drivers are not being exploited,” said Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown.

    But the proposals also raise broad, difficult questions like what protections does a large independent contractor workforce need? And how would constraining the business model of Uber and Lyft impact service availability around the state?

    Sen. Craig Miner, a Republican of Litchfield who sits on the Labor committee, wondered why Uber and Lyft drivers should have guaranteed pay, when other independent contractors do not. How would this impact the tax benefits realized by independent contractors, he asked.

    Uber and Lyft declined to provide data on how many drivers they have in the state, and the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles does not keep count. In Connecticut, 82 percent of Lyft drivers drive fewer than 20 hours per week, said Kaelan Richards, a Lyft spokesperson.

    Last week, Hearst Connecticut Media spoke to 20 Uber and Lyft drivers in New Haven who are demanding lawmakers protect their pay. All drove full-time for Uber or Lyft or both.

    An immigrant from Ecuador, Estrella, the Branford driver, struggles to pay for rent and groceries for his pregnant wife and seven-year-old son using his Uber wages.

    “A cup of coffee at the local Starbucks cost $3 or $4,” said Estrella. “How can a trip can cost $3 when you have to drive to them five minutes away and drop them off after seven or eight minutes?”

    In December, 50 Uber and Lyft drivers held a strike in New Haven demanding better pay. The New Haven drivers last week said they are planning more strikes soon.

    “Why is Uber lowering the rates and why do we have to say yes to keep working?” asked Carlos Gomez, a Guilford Uber driver, last week.

    The drivers believe Uber and Lyft are decreasing driver pay and taking a larger chunk of rider fares for company profits. Many New Haven drivers said pay per mile has been decreasing. They liked Sen. Cassano’s idea of setting minimum pay per mile and per minute.

    “The payment by mile, it went down by 10 cents,” said Rosanna Olan, a driver from West Haven. “Before it was more than one dollar and now when you have a big truck SUV, working long distance especially is not worth it anymore.”

    Uber and Lyft both declined to provide pay rates per mile and per minute for drivers. Drivers are not paid for time spent driving to pick up a passenger, nor for time spent idling waiting for a ride, although the companies’ model depends on having drivers ready to pick up passengers at any moment.

    Lyft said nationally drivers earn an average of $18.83 an hour, but did not provide Connecticut specific earnings.

    “Our goal has always been to empower drivers to get the most out of Lyft, and we look forward to continBy Emilie Munson Updated 4:49 pm EST, Monday, February 11, 2019uing to do so in Connecticut, and across the country," said Rich Power, public policy manager at Lyft.

    Uber discouraged lawmakers from considering the drivers’ proposal of capping the transportation companies’ cut of rider fares. Uber spokesman Harry Hartfield said the idea wouldn’t work because Uber no longer uses the “commission model” — that stopped about two years ago.

    “In order to make sure we can provide customers with an up-front price, driver fares are not tied to what the rider pays,” said Hartfield. “In fact, on many trips drivers actually make more money than the rider pays.”

    What the rider is pays to Uber is an estimated price, calculated before the ride starts, Hartfield explained, while the driver receives from Uber a fare that is calculated based on actual drive time and distance. Changing the model could make it hard to give customers up-front pricing and “lead to reduced price transparency,” Hartfield said. New York’s changes raised rates for riders.

    James Bhandary-Alexander, a New Haven Legal Assistance attorney who is working with the drivers, said Uber’s current pay model is “irrelevant to how drivers want to be paid for the work.”

    “The reason that drivers care is it seems fundamentally unfair that the rider is willing to pay or has paid $100 for the ride and the driver has only gotten $30 or $40 of that,” he said.

    Pursuing any of the three driver-pay proposals would bring Uber and Lyft lobbyists back to the Capitol, where they negotiated legislation spearheaded by Rep. Sean Scanlon, D-Guilford, from 2015 to 2017.

    Scanlon said the companies eventually favored the bill passed in 2017, which, after some compromise, required drivers have insurance, limited “surge pricing,” mandated background checks for drivers, imposed a 25 cent tax collected by the state and stated passengers must be picked up and delivered anywhere without discrimination.

    “One of my biggest regrets about that bill, which I think is really good for consumers in Connecticut, is that we didn’t do anything to try to help the driver,” said Scanlon, who briefly drove for Uber.
    By Emilie Munson Updated 4:49 pm EST, Monday, February 11, 2019
    emunson@hearstmediact.com; Twitter: @emiliemunson

    #USA #Uber #Connecticut #Mindestlohn #Klassenkampf

  • Fair for Uber: Cars with unlimited mileage
    https://www.fair.com/uber/cars


    So stellen die sich das vor:

    1. Join Uber
    If you’re new to Uber, sign up to be an Uber driver-partner on the Uber app. If you’re already an Uber driver-partner, just download the Fair app.
    2. Get Fair
    Reserve a car for $185/week* plus taxes and a $185 refundable security deposit***. When you pick it up, you can choose from a variety of makes and models.
    3. Earn Rewards
    Complete 70 trips in a week, earn $185 in rewards from Uber. That can cover your weekly car payment to Fair. If you complete 120 trips, get a $305 reward**.

    Rideshare-ready cars include: Fair Insurance, Unlimited Miles, Roadside Assistance, Vehicle Registration, Routine Maintenance, Vehicle Warranty

    Meet our happy drivers.
    “I just look at my phone and I have everything to take care of this car and take care of me.”
    – Matt

    Get a car
    *Tax not included. Only available in California. To get a car with this offer, must be 21+ in age and been approved to drive with Uber.

    **Special Uber offer applies to driver partners using Fair cars priced at $185/week (plus tax). Complete 70 trips with Uber each week to receive a $185 reward each week from Uber in your driver account. Complete 120 trips with Uber each week to receive a $305 reward from Uber for the week. Rewards cannot be combined and you are eligible only for the maximum reward offered based on the total number of trips you complete. Payout from Uber will be reflected in your earnings statement on Thursdays. Canceled trips do not count toward the trip threshold. Trip requirements and the promotion payment are prorated based on when your Fair agreement begins. Starting the Monday following the date your rental agreement begins, you will receive the full week incentive. Uber reserves the right to withhold payment in the event of suspected fraud or abuse. Uber driver partners are still responsible to make weekly car payments to Fair. Drivers in Fair vehicles qualify for trip surge areas, but except as specified above may not qualify to participate in other promotional offers such as Boost Consecutive Trips, or Quest promotions. Offer subject to change or withdrawal at any time. For details click here. Note rewards amounts do not cover taxes. Uber is not responsible for the products or services offered by other companies, including Fair, or for the terms and conditions (including financial terms) under which those products and services are offered.

    ***To get a Fair Vehicle, your only required payment is a $185 refundable security deposit plus the first weekly payment of $185 (plus tax). You can return the Fair Vehicle by the end of the 7- day period if you do not want to extend your use. If you do not return the car by the end of the 7- day period, it will auto-renew for another 7 days and we will charge you upfront the weekly payment of $185 plus tax. The minimum use period is 7 days, including for any renewal, and the weekly payment will not be prorated for returns made before the end of any 7-day period.

    Terms and Conditions.

    Get a car with Fair and earn a weekly reward from Uber of $185 when you complete 70 trips in a week and $305 for 120 trips in a week when you drive with Uber. With 70 trips, you can earn the amount of your $185 weekly payment. Please note rewards amounts do not cover taxes.

    Only available in California. To get a car, must be 21+ in age and been approved to drive with Uber. Special offer applies to Fair cars priced at $185/week (plus tax). Complete 70 trips with Uber each week to receive a $185 credit from Uber in your driver account. Complete 120 trips with Uber each week to receive a $305 credit from Uber for the week. Uber driver partners are still responsible to make weekly car payments to Fair. Offer subject to change or withdrawal at any time. For details click here. You can use the reward provided by Uber to help you offset the weekly cost of your Fair car. The $185 and $305 rewards are limited only to those drivers with Fair vehicles who are driving with Uber.

    Please note the $185 and $305 rewards are provided by Uber and Fair is not responsible for the payment of Uber incentives or for the terms and conditions under which those incentives are offered. You must have all licenses, permits and other governmental or other approvals required to drive on the Uber platform.

    See Uber Terms and Conditions below for details.

    Uber Terms and Conditions

    Rewards are paid by Uber, and payouts will appear on your weekly pay statements. With participation in this reward program, you will no longer be eligible for Boost and Quest.

    On any given week during this rewards period, you are only eligible for the maximum reward offered in your city based on the number of trips you complete.
    Canceled trips don’t count towards your completed trips.
    Trip requirements and the rewards payment is prorated based on when your Fair agreement begins.
    Starting the Monday following the date after your Fair agreement begins, you’ll receive the full week reward as long as you meet the trip requirements. Uber reserves the right to withhold payment in the event of suspected fraud or abuse.
    The terms of this reward are subject to change and may be withdrawn at any time.

    #USA #Kalinornien #Uber #Mietwagen

  • LibreTaxi - free and open source Uber/Lyft alternative.
    https://libretaxi.org

    Free and open source alternative to Uber/Lyft connecting passengers and drivers.
    LibreTaxi makes ridesharing affordable by getting rid of the third party between passengers and drivers. Negotiate the price before the ride is confirmed, pay cash upon arrival. 1-minute hiring for all drivers.

    GitHub - ro31337/libretaxi: LibreTaxi, free and open source Uber/Lyft alternative to connect passengers and drivers.
    https://github.com/ro31337/libretaxi
    https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/1477672?s=400&v=4

    LibreTaxi, free and open source Uber/Lyft alternative to connect passengers and drivers. http://libretaxi.org

    LibreTaxi press coverage – Telegraph
    https://telegra.ph/LibreTaxi-press-coverage-07-14

    Roman PushkinJuly 14, 2017
    CBC Radio One - The man who wants to out-Uber Uber

    Text: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/346-biometrics-audio-intelligence-and-more-1.3987746/the-man-who-wants-to-out-uber-uber-1.3987987

    Audio: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/879770691848
    Bitcoinist - INTERVIEW WITH LIBRETAXI: THE ‘FREE ALTERNATIVE’ TO LYFT & UBER http://bitcoinist.com/interview-libretaxi-free-uber-lyft
    Hacker News (1200+ pts) - LibreTaxi – A free and open source alternative to Uber and Lyft https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13529213
    Shareable - Q&A: LibreTaxi’s Roman Pushkin on Why He Made a Free, Open-Source Alternative to Uber and Lyft http://www.shareable.net/blog/qa-libretaxis-roman-pushkin-on-why-he-made-a-free-open-source-alternative
    Seeker - A Free Uber-Like App Finds Rides for People in Rural Areas https://www.seeker.com/a-free-uber-like-app-finds-rides-for-people-in-rural-areas-2242594637.html
    Core Impulse (Columbia University’s entrepreneurship publication) - LibreTaxi: Uber for Rural, Disadvantaged Communities https://impulse.coreatcu.com/libretaxi-an-uber-for-rural-disadvantaged-communities-657269849d31
    El País (the most highly circulated daily newspaper in Spain) - /Spanish/ Libre Taxi, o cómo convertirse en chófer en dos minutos gracias a Telegram https://elpais.com/tecnologia/2017/02/02/actualidad/1486029308_574979.html
    hipertextual - /Spanish/ LibreTaxi, entre Telegram y la más absoluta locura https://hipertextual.com/2017/02/libretaxi
    Product Hunt - Open source alternative to Uber/Lyft for Telegram https://www.producthunt.com/posts/libretaxi
    Observer - Uber But for Places Where Uber Would Never Go http://observer.com/2017/02/libretaxi-uber-ridesharing
    TechCrunch - /mentioned along with few other projects/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/30/google-org-blackrock-and-others-commit-2-2-million-to-fast-forwards-nonp
    Boingboing - Libretaxi: a free, open, cash-only alternative to Uber, for the rest of the world http://boingboing.net/2017/03/23/platform-cooperativism.html
    Hightech.fm - /Russian/ LibreTaxi — революция в сфере пассажирских перевозок https://hightech.fm/2017/02/08/libre-taxi
    Hightech.fm - /Russian/ LibreTaxi — это коммуникационная услуга, а не сервис такси https://hightech.fm/2017/06/21/libretaxi
    Silver Rain Radio - /Russian/ - Заказать такси теперь можно через Telegram

    Text: http://www.silver.ru/programms/nanonovosti/editions-of-the-program/materials-ZakazattaksitepermozhnocherezTelegram

    Audio: http://www2.silver.ru/audio/FADWW
    NTV - LibreTaxi /Russian/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY9_Rxck3YE

    #Taxi #open_source #Uber #Vermittlung

  • I Rode All the E-Scooters. Most of Them Are Awful Except Two
    https://jalopnik.com/i-rode-all-the-e-scooters-most-of-them-are-awful-excep-1835373127

    So sieht es im paradiesischen Wunderland des Transport-Sharing aus : #ASAB Alle Roller sind Mist, außer einem, und der ist genau genommen kein Roller. Und in Berlin? Sind das bessere E-Roller Made in Germany ? Wohl kaum. Tragt bloß einen Helm!

    Matt Farah, 6/10/19 3:45pm - One weekend morning toward the end of 2017, I woke up at home in Venice, CA and took a walk, only to see something entirely new: people on electric scooters. And I mean lots of people on electric scooters. Literally overnight, a new company called Bird, founded just two miles away in Santa Monica, had launched an app and dumped thousands of dockless scooters all over the place. A few things happened very quickly after that:

    Bird Scooters became litter. Freelance chargers, or “Juicers” as Lime would later call their not-employees, would do their best to place the scooters in an orderly fashion, out of the way in common areas. But since people only have respect for a.) things they, themselves personally own or b.) are locked down or are being watched, kicking, destroying, throwing them in the ocean, and more turned into Venice’s favorite new sport. The other morning, I watched someone line up a dozen or more scooters neatly, get into their van, and drive off. Not 10 seconds later, someone used a shopping cart as a bowling ball, turning the whole thing into some kind of bramble.
    Everyone wanted to compete with Bird. Lime was next, with its fun, fruit-themed livery. Bird and Lime were the new disruptors, and the OG disruptors, Uber and Lyft, wanted in on that sweet, sweet last-mile dollar. So those two started dropping their own scooters all over.
    E-Mobility Scooters have absolutely decimated the bike rental industry in Venice. Enterprising bike rental shop owners began to moonlight as scooter chargers or repair facilities. Some bike rental shop owners began buying and renting out their own scooters. Now, just 18 months later, on any given weekend, well over 50 percent of the wheeled traffic on the Venice bike path is battery powered.

    There were injuries. Lots of injuries. Anecdotally, I regularly see people wiping out and getting hurt on mobility scooters. It happens enough that I have made something of a pastime watching a specific corner on the bike path near my house. Business Insider reports over 1,500 injuries serious enough to record in the U.S., in 2018 alone, plus four fatalities.

    For the record, I sympathize with local residents who resent them taking up sidewalk space in front of their home, hate them for becoming litter in a neighborhood that often has too much of that already, and who have to deal with yet another way for dumb, lost tourists to be dumb and lost.

    I’ve found scooters blocking my own front door or garage on several occasions. And folks tend to want the best of all worlds while riding one: they want the rights of a pedestrian, the rights of a bicycle, and the rights of a car, all at the same time, which is an incredibly dangerous mindset.

    Also, for the record, I have found some extremely convenient uses for the scooters when I need to get somewhere that is just out of walking range, or to “run to the store to pick up some forgotten ingredient” while a recipe is in the oven. I have used every brand of scooter at one point or another, with extremely mixed results. I will factor in previous experience into my rankings.

    The Test: My goal was to find out which mobility company provides the best motoring experience for the rider, for their money. A showdown, for which scooter is best.

    For purposes of this piece, we will not be discussing company policy, only the scooter itself, and whether or not you should get down with it when you come hang out with me on Venice Beach.

    The Circuit

    Allow me to introduce you to The Mobiliring: a 3.4-mile handling circuit featuring a variety of surface changes, corners, crags, obstacles, sand, and people.

    You begin at the Venice Beach Parking lot at 2100 Ocean Front Walk, with the densest population of scooters around. Proceeding straight across the parking lot to the bike path, you go north on the bike path over a winding way made of slatted, rough, sandy concrete, all the way to the Santa Monica border, where you turn back south because mobility scooters can’t be ridden on the bike path at all in the city of Santa Monica.

    You ride south on Speedway, basically a decaying alley full of potholes, but appropriately named, as it was LA’s first paved road. Take Speedway south to Windward Avenue, the heart of Venice, and turn right, weaving across the freestyle dance skating grounds, through the throngs of tourists, and back to the bike path where it meets the legal graffiti area. Continue south on the bike path until you get to the Venice pier, then turn left on Washington Blvd and an immediate left to go north on Speedway, taking you right back to Start/Finish.

    This course is approximately 60 percent unlimited-speed bike path and 40 percent public roads, and in order to successfully complete a lap, you must pay attention and obey all posted road signs and laws.

    (Before you ask, Yes, I bought the Mobiliring domain name. Yes, I will be inviting you to post your own lap times.)

    The Contenders: We’ve restricted our entrants to scooter-type vehicles (as opposed to e-assist bicycles) available on the street for rent in Venice, CA as of May 13, 2019. For this test, that means Bird, Lime, Lyft, Jump (Uber), and Wheels are in the game. Now let’s see how they did on our handling course.

    5th Place – Jump – DNF

    Jump, along with Lyft, uses the Segway / Ninebot ES2 scooter with 19 miles of range and a claimed top speed of 15 mph. This scooter also uses two independent braking methods: regenerative via a toggle on the handlebar, and direct friction via a pressure plate on the rear tire. But, as with shared platforms in cars, the difference is often in the fine tuning, and here, the tuning mattered a lot.

    Our test started well. I picked up a fully charged and seemingly brand-new Jump scooter a few road blocks from the Mobiliring’s Start/Finish line. On the road, it seemed reasonably well made and stable, and reached the claimed top speed of 15 mph relatively drama-free. Then, just after starting off my official lap time, I hit the bike path, and it told me “no.”

    This is important. You see, the Venice bike path is exactly what it sounds like: a dedicated path for bikes, separate from cars and pedestrians. How each of these scooters deals with the bike path, as we will learn, is a defining factor in their Mobiliring time. The bike path and some of the surrounding pedestrian areas, a few of which are on-course, are “restricted” for some scooters, but not for others.

    While each scooter company deals with the bike path its own way, Jump has elected not to deal with it at all. The scooter refused to move, the app told me to take it back off the path, and into a “parking zone,” to lock it up and end my ride.

    I pushed it back where I found it, and even though my phone knew where I was, the scooter disagreed, and I was penalized for $5 for, ultimately, parking it legally.

    4th Place – Lime S – 44 minutes - $7.60

    Lime, the second scooter brand on the scene after Bird, has just released a heavier-duty version of their scooter, called the “Gen 3.” It features an underfloor battery for better stability, improved front suspension, bigger wheels, and a 30-mile range with all-weather capability.

    Unfortunately, since California doesn’t need that as badly as, say, Boston, we don’t get those. Here in Venice, we get the original Lime S scooter, also by Ninebot, but with a 18 mile range and a top speed of 14 mph. The Lime S has the tallest handlebars of all scooters and a single, rear-wheel bike-style cable and disc brake.

    In my previous experience, I’ve found the Lime S to be the fastest of the stand-up scooters, regularly exceeding the claimed 14 mph number, but also with the twitchiest handling in part because those handlebars are so high up and with a column full of heavy batteries in the front. Allegedly the handling issues are solved in the new scooter, but I will have to wait to see on that.

    Lime has decided that an appropriate speed for the Venice bike path should be 3 mph. Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to operate a two-wheeled vehicle at 3 mph, but it’s actually quite a lot of work. Three is just barely enough speed to keep a two-wheeled vehicle standing up. It’s slow enough that I was passed by old people walking.

    It’s so slow, that you really can’t keep it in a straight line, which means the ride takes that much longer because you have to cover more zig-zaggy distance, and have I mentioned you’re going three? 

    I was openly mocked, to my face. I realize how mean-spirited you need to be to mock someone to their face for doing nothing besides silently riding a scooter very slowly on the bike path, but honestly, no one has just randomly mocked me on the street really ever in my lifetime. That’s how embarrassingly slow Lime wants you to go on the bike path.

    To make matters worse, Lime’s GPS calibration is so bad that, not 20 feet away from me on the pedestrian foot path I was passed by a dozen Limes going full-tilt, weaving between pedestrians, while I was a rolling chicane on the bike path, being passed by folks going slower than my own top speed.

    3rd Place – Lyft – 31 minutes, 47 Seconds - $7.01

    As I noted earlier, both Lyft and Jump use essentially the same Ninebot ES2scooter, painted different colors. But the difference between Jump’s DNF and Lyft’s podium finish? The software.

    Jump uses a basic LED display with a speedometer, whereas Lyft just has five little lights to indicate battery status. You could say that makes Jump better, but in fact it makes Jump worse, because there is nothing worse than looking at a powered vehicle’s speedometer and seeing a number lower than where you’d set the treadmill during cool down.

    Lyft’s “Prince Purple” and black livery also features a metal cage surrounding the column-mounted auxiliary battery pack, Mad Max style. I guess they follow @BirdGraveyard.

    I actually tested the Lyft before Lime and Jump, so when I hit the bike path and got stuck with a 5 mph limiter for the first mile and a half, it was bad. I thought that was, at the time, as embarrassed as I could be on a motorized vehicle, traveling barely faster than a walk. The thumb throttle, remained fully depressed for a solid 20 minutes, and my right hand began to cramp. I suddenly realized that, if the other scooters were this bad (they were worse) the test was actually going to take all day (it did).

    In unrestricted zones, the electrons flowed like a burst dam; the combination of power delivery and incredibly cheap, low-grip tires mean that you can actually get wheelspin on the sandy stuff – man this thing is fast. Maybe Lyft doesn’t put a speedometer on the handlebars because they are hiding the fact that their scooters are massively juiced up? Maybe it’s like Japan in the 1990s where everyone says their car makes 276 horsepower, and this is the R34 Skyline actually pushing 450?

    Southbound on Speedway, there were sections where I couldn’t use full throttle because it was just way, way too fast. With these tiny wheels, and this amount of power, when you hit the pavement head first (your only option when the front wheel “pivot point” of a crash is 4” in front of your toes), your head will explode like a Gallagher watermelon.

    The regenerative braking system on these Ninebot scooters is really cool, except, like most cheap regen systems, it stops working at low speed. So you really do have to use the friction brake on the rear wheel to come to a full stop.

    Considering the speed, you do not want to be standing on your toes on your back foot, which means you have to do a mid-brake foot shuffle to get that back foot planted on the brake to stop it. It seems like a good idea, and probably adds to the range to use regen as much as possible, but in a panic, complex braking systems are not good.

    Nevertheless, the bike path clearly took a lot away from Lyft’s time here, and so if you live in a city without restricted zones, commuting on one of these could be faster than you think. Wear a helmet.

    2nd Place – Bird Zero – 20 minutes - $6.20

    Bird is the Kleenex of mobility, the Google of mobility, the iPod of mobility. They were the first on the scene and made everyone else play catch-up. The original Bird scooter was a modified Xiaomi unit (sidebar: the guy who modified it is super interesting on his own and races a very fast and aero-fied Nissan GT-R in the Global Time Attack series), which proved not to be durable enough to stand up to the abuse put forth by Americans handling items they don’t own. So they first did a stint with Ninebot before developing their own in-house scooter, the Bird Zero, which is what I rode.

    The Zero has the widest deck of any standup scooter available, making it the most comfortable and stable to ride. (EDIT: New “Bolt” Scooters in LA have wider decks, but were not online at the time of my test). The handlebars fall between Jump and Lime height, so right in the middle, and between your hands is a speedometer and battery indicator.

    Though Bird says the Zero will go 25 km/hr (15 mph), the onboard speedometer would stop at 11.5 mph, and if you actually hit 12 mph (like on a small downhill), it would kill power until you dropped down to 9 mph, an incredibly annoying bug.

    It has larger wheels than the Ninebots used by Lyft, Jump and Lime, and what appear to be grippier tires. At 11 mph and change, you feel like you’re moving along pretty good, but it’s not sketchy fast, and the combination of (slightly) larger wheels and a basic front suspension mean the cracks in the sidewalk aren’t so jarring. The only brake is a bicycle-style cable disc brake on the rear wheel. The cable is exposed, so it’s vulnerable to tampering, but it’s intuitive and effective.

    (Side note: Yes, people are constantly messing with the brakes of these scooters. I regularly find cut cables, and on a few occasions, have started riding only to find out while in motion that the cables have been cut or removed entirely. Check any scooter before riding for functional brakes.)

    I took my first lap ever around the Mobiliring on a Bird, figuring they would be the one to beat, and frankly, Bird is the gold standard for a reason. The Zero is unrestricted on the bike path, and maintained its top speed for the entire first twisty section. The handling is predictable, and there is more grip than other scooters, right up until it gets sandy. Turning southward on Speedway at the north end of the course, the Zero absorbed many of the bumps and ruts in the road better than other scooters. Because I didn’t bump up on any stupid limiters, the entire lap was quite pleasant and relaxing.

    Having tried all three generations of Bird scooter, the Zero is a vast improvement from the first two, and if you’re going to scoot on your feet, not on a seat, Bird is probably the one to ride.

    1st Place – Wheels – 15 Minutes, 16 seconds - $5.60

    “Wheels” is the newest mobility company on the scene; their miniature bicycles only appeared in Venice a few months ago. These bikes are, frankly, genius. In theory, they go up to 35 km/hr, (21.7 mph), though I never saw more than 33.5 on the display.

    Because they are the first mobility option with hot-swappable batteries, the bikes themselves never go out of service during daytime hours. Wheels “Transporters” pick random bikes from where they are left, swap the batteries, and return the bikes to “hubs,” where, in my experience, you can pretty much always find at least one.

    The fact that they are more like bicycles than Razor scooters is, itself, a major advantage. Sitting, rather than standing, means stability. It means your knees and ankles aren’t a suspension component. It has 14-inch wheels with pneumatic tires. It uses dual disc brakes from a high-end bicycle. It has a twist-grip throttle, like a motorcycle. And it has Bluetooth speakers, so you can play your music from the bike itself, freeing you from having to dangerously (and in Santa Monica, illegally) ride on the street wearing headphones.

    A Wheels has enough power that you don’t have to push-start it, real tires so you can ride confidently on sandy tarmac, and the kind of brakes you’d want on a vehicle capable of keeping up with, and passing, folks on geared bicycles, or even cars in urban traffic. The kind of bumps that would sail you headfirst into a parked car on a traditional scooter are mere inconveniences on a Wheels.

    I knew it would be faster than the scooters on specs alone, but honestly, it was also so much more fun. Every single scooter is kinda terrifying, because a crack or a bump can come up so quickly, with really bad consequences. Even while having fun, it’s virtually impossible to escape this train of thought. Especially since right when you do, that’s when you crash.

    A Wheels is like riding an electric Honda Grom. The bike path, unrestricted on a Wheels, might as well be Angeles Crest Highway. I was taking apexes, leaning it down, balancing the brakes, and leaning into the throttle on exits. You can actually look up and around, rather than four feet in front of you, because you aren’t terrified of uneven pavement anymore.

    Best of all, because it looks more like a bike than a Razor scooter, many folks are riding them in more appropriate places than sidewalks, because they no longer see themselves as pedestrians.

    And the speed, Lord, the speed. It completed the Mobiliring a full five minutes faster than Bird, in half the time of Lyft, 1/3 the time of Lime, and for less money than all of them—after all, you’re literally renting these things by the minute, not the mile. Time is money.

    Downsides? Admittedly, there are two: First are the exposed brake cables for the dual disc brakes. During the single day of this test, I found three Wheels with intentionally cut brake lines. Someone not as vigilant as myself might not notice, which, considering where they were cut, I believe was the sadistic intent.

    Secondly, 20 mph is fast enough to have a crash where you can get hurt pretty badly, and Wheels is getting awfully close to moped territory; those do require helmets. While you’re no longer worried about pavement quality, you are going fast enough to misjudge things and just, crash. I hate to say it, but helmets should probably be mandated. And if I’m nit-picking, a height-adjustable seat would be nice, although not having to pedal negates most of the negative effects of a fixed seat.

    When scooters first arrived in Venice, I rolled my eyes and said to myself, “Great, at last a substitute for walking.” And in some ways, I was right. These scooters do expose us at our most slovenly, both in how we treat them when no one is looking, and in how tourists do actually use them, right in front of me, every day: as a walk you don’t have to walk; as a bike you don’t have to pedal.

    But they also do give mobility to people who don’t otherwise have it. 30 miles in LA is a pretty long way; you could ride a Wheels from Venice to Beverly Hills and back, for less than an Uber or Lyft, and without having to be a sweaty mess when you got there. Bird scooters and their ilk are good for short trips that are just out of walking distance, as long as you don’t have to deal with restricted zones and the surface is good.

    A Wheels is good for that too, but it can also be a bicycle. And frankly, it’s safer. Wheels wins this one by a mile.

    But as I write this, some three more e-scooters are coming to Venice in the next month. I guess the Mobiliring’s work isn’t done yet.❞

    #USA #Elektroroller #Verkehr

  • Federal judge rules Uber calling its drivers independent contractors may violate antitrust and harm competition / Boing Boing
    https://boingboing.net/2019/06/21/labor-uber.html

    A federal judge has ruled that alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors by the ride-hailing service app Uber could harm competition and violate the spirit of America’s antitrust laws.

    • Lawsuit says misclassifying workers creates competitive harm
    • 30 days to amend complaint with new information

    The ruling by Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is not a final decision in the case, but is a “significant warning to ride-hailing companies,” Bloomberg News reports.

    “It signals how a 2018 California Supreme Court case and future worker classification laws could open the floodgates to worker misclassification and antitrust claims.”

    Uber’s Worker Business Model May Harm Competition, Judge Says
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/ubers-worker-business-model-may-harm-competition-judge-says

    Uber’s Worker Business Model May Harm Competition, Judge Says
    Posted June 21, 2019
    Suit: Misclassifying workers produces competitive harm
    Complaint must be amended within 30 days with new information
    Uber‘s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors could significantly harm competition and violate the spirit of antitrust laws, a federal judge ruled.

    The ruling, although not a final decision in the case, is a significant warning to ride-hailing companies. It signals how a 2018 California Supreme Court case and future worker classification laws could open the floodgates to worker misclassification and antitrust claims.

    Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss all of the claims brought against Uber by Los Angeles-based transportation service Diva Limousine, saying the company established a causal link between Uber’s behavior and real economic harm being felt by competitors.

    Driver misclassification could save Uber as much as $500 million annually just in California, according to Diva’s lawyers.

    “Diva’s allegations support the inference that Uber could not have undercut market prices to the same degree without misclassifying its drivers to skirt significant costs,” the judge wrote in the June 20 ruling.

    Unlike employees, independent contractors aren’t entitled to benefits such as health care, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, and overtime.

    An attorney for Diva said he was pleased with the court’s decision and that it was a warning that the company couldn’t skirt California labor laws.

    “There’s an acknowledgement here that Uber not only harms its drivers but also that its conduct crosses the line from robust competition to unfair competition,” said attorney Aaron Sheanin of Robins Kaplan LLP. “And that injures its competitiors, including Diva.”

    Uber didn’t return a request for comment.

    Overall, Uber was only able to get part of Diva’s complaint fully dismissed—specifically, its claims under the state’s Unfair Practices Act. Diva’s claims under the California Unfair Competition Law can proceed once it amends its complaint to address jurisdictional issues and other legal arguments.

    Diva’s lawyers have 30 days to refile an updated complaint which is likely to move forward given the judge’s ruling that the claims have merit.

    The ruling was based in part from language drawn from the California Supreme Court’s April 2018 ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court. That decision made it harder for California employers to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. It also condemns misclassification as a type of unfair competition.

    Uber identified Dynamex in regulatory filings as a long-term potential risk factor for its business success.

    The case is Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:18-cv-05546, Order Issued 6/20/19.

    #USA #Uber #Wettbewerb #Monopol #Urteil #Justiz

  • Hundreds of Uber Drivers in Toronto Are Joining a Union
    https://gizmodo.com/hundreds-of-uber-drivers-in-toronto-are-joining-a-union-1835878097

    In a growing number of cities where rideshare platforms operate, drivers are fed up with the low pay, long hours, and lack of basic worker protections that shlepping strangers around entails. In the U.S., this has led to large, coordinated protests and attempts to game the system to achieve a living wage. Canadian drivers, however, took a more traditional route: signing union cards.

    First announced on Monday, Uber drivers based in Toronto expressed their intention to join the United Food and Commercial Workers, a 250,000-strong trade union which operates in both Canada and the U.S. The actual number of drivers who had signed cards was not released, but during a press conference this afternoon, UFCW Canada staffer Pablo Godoy claimed their support had hit the “high hundreds” and were growing rapidly.

    As with grassroots groups like Rideshare Drivers United, the hope is to bring Uber’s work standards into closer parity with that of traditional cabs by upholding the regional minimum wage, sick day, vacation, and break standards, as well as an overhaul of the deactivation system that effectively allows Uber to fire drivers without recourse. “These are human rights, and all drivers deserve this basic level of respect,” Ejaz Butt, a local driver, said today.

    What makes Ontario an interesting test bed is that by signing with UFCW, drivers are effectively shooting first and asking questions later—which may end up being the wiser tactic. “Today is the beginning of a process that we’re embarking on. The first step of that process is to call Uber come to the table,” Godoy said, though he readily admits Uber has yet to offer a response. (For whatever it’s worth, Gizmodo also reached out to Uber for comment on Monday and has also not received a reply.) The same business model that allows Uber to consider its drivers independent contractors rather than employees exists in Canada just as it does in the U.S., and Uber is certain to defend its claim vociferously if it’s forced to acknowledge a threat to said claim at all.

    At the moment, the UFCW-signed drivers in Canada’s largest city are not certified as a union, and matters may be further complicated by the fact that most rideshare drivers operate on multiple platforms concurrently. “Having multiple employers does not mean that you’re not an employee of the company that you drive or work for,” Godoy stated, but it may still pose representation issues down the line.

    Currently, Toronto’s city government is weighing how to balance the interests of rideshare and cab companies—something New York already had a protracted fight over, eventually ruling in favor of drivers. Ultimately, Godoy told the press that “we believe Uber will listen to the concerns.”

    Toronto Uber drivers join the union - UFCW Canada – MEDIA CONFERENCE ALERT
    https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/06/24/1873334/0/en/Toronto-Uber-drivers-join-the-union-UFCW-Canada-MEDIA-CONFERENCE-ALER

    TORONTO, June 24, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Hundreds of Uber drivers in Toronto have joined UFCW Canada (United Food and Commercial Workers union), the country’s leading private-sector union. On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11 a.m., Uber drivers and their union will hold a media conference at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel to discuss the challenges Uber drivers face, and the redress they and their union are seeking from Uber. 

    Uber drivers don’t get paid sick days, vacation days or extended health coverage, and must cover their own fuel and repair costs. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute calculated that after costs, most Uber drivers earned less than $10 an hour. “Uber calls us partners, but we have absolutely no say about our working conditions, or even being able to take a bathroom break,” says Ejaz Butt, who works for Uber and helped start the union drive. “We know we make a lot of money for Uber but in return we get treated like we don’t matter.” Butt and other Uber drivers will be at the June 26th Toronto media conference.

    “Companies like UBER, who can hire and fire drivers and fully dictate the terms of employment should be held accountable for the well-being of their employees,” says Paul Meinema, the National President of UFCW Canada. “Uber is the employer. The drivers are employees. The technology is just a management tool and the company should adhere to the labour laws,” says the UFCW Canada leader, who will also be participating in the June 26th media conference in Toronto.

    About UFCW Canada: UFCW Canada represents more than 250,000 union members across the country working in food retail and processing, transportation, health, logistics, warehousing, agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, security and professional sectors. UFCW Canada is the country’s most innovative organization dedicated to building fairness in workplaces and communities. UFCW Canada members are your neighbours who work at your local grocery stores, hotels, airport food courts, taxi firms, car rental agencies, nursing homes, restaurants, food processing plants and thousands of other locations across the country. To find out more about UFCW and its ground-breaking work, visit www.ufcw.ca.

    CONTACT:
    Pablo Godoy
    National Coordinator, Gig and Platform-Employer Initiatives
    416-675-1104, extension 2236
    pablo.godoy@ufcw.ca
    www.ufcw.ca

    #Kanada #Uber #Gewerkschaft

  • Uber settles with UK women who accused driver of sexual assault
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/27/uber-settles-with-uk-women-who-accused-driver-of-sexual-assault

    Firm had contested allegations but has reached undisclosed out-of-court settlements Uber has reached out-of-court settlements with two women who alleged they were sexually assaulted by the same driver in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the UK against the company. The cases were taken by two women who had ordered vehicles using Uber’s app during nights out in Leeds in December 2015, but told police they were sexually assaulted by the driver. They are both five-figure (...)

    #Uber #procès #harcèlement #viol

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c5afdeaf67ed74eb68450170f2ef0ac6069ee3c4/17_102_2963_1778/master/2963.jpg

  • Deliveroo, Uber Eats… La canicule, enfer au carré pour les livreurs à vélo (Marianne)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/16193-deliveroo-uber-eats-la-canicule-enfer-au-carre-pour-les-livreurs-a-

    Déjà dans une situation précaire bien connue, les livreurs à vélo d’applications comme Deliveroo et Uber Eats nous racontent comment la canicule, outre ses effets physiques évidents dans un métier si exposé, provoque des effets pervers sur leur activité.

    A deux pas de la Bastille, lundi 24 juin à Paris, il est 21 heures. Le visage ruisselant et le souffle court, Bacem D., trentenaire, descend de son outil de travail : son vélo. Depuis midi, au premier jour de la canicule qui s’est abattue cette semaine sur la France, il a réalisé une vingtaine de courses, par 30 degrés Celsius en moyenne, sans pause pour ses deux employeurs, Uber Eats et Deliveroo. Au lieu de les encourager à lever le pied sur la pédale par cette météo extrême, rapporte-t-il à Marianne, ces derniers ont au contraire… (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_françaises

  • Food-Delivery Couriers Exploit Desperate Migrants in France
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/business/uber-eats-deliveroo-glovo-migrants.html

    Aymen Arfaoui strapped on a plastic Uber Eats bag and checked his cellphone for the fastest bicycle route before pedaling into the stream of cars circling the Place de la République. Time was money, and Mr. Arfaoui, a nervous 18-year-old migrant, needed cash. “I’m doing this because I have to eat,” he said, locking in a course that could save him a few minutes on his first delivery of the day. “It’s better than stealing or begging on the street.” Mr. Arfaoui has no working papers, and he would (...)

    #Deliveroo #UberEATS #Facebook #Glovo #Uber #domination #bénéfices #travail

  • Facebook’s Libra: Three things we don’t know about the digital currency - MIT Technology Review
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613801/facebooks-libra-three-things-we-dont-know-about-the-digital-curren

    If it’s not the most high-profile cryptocurrency-related event ever, Facebook’s launch of a test network for its new digital currency, called Libra coin, has been the most hyped. It is also polarizing among cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Some think it’s good for the crypto industry; others dislike the fact that a big tech company appears to be co-opting a technology that was supposed to help people avoid big tech companies. Still others say it’s not even a real cryptocurrency.

    Libra’s network won’t work that way. Instead, running a “validator node” requires permission. To begin with, Facebook has signed up dozens of firms—including Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, Uber, Lyft, Vodafone, Spotify, eBay, and popular Argentine e-commerce company MercadoLibre—to participate in the network that will validate transactions. Each of these “founding members” has invested around $10 million in the project.

    That obviously runs counter to the pro-decentralization ideology popular among cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

    Today’s public blockchains use too much energy and process transactions too slowly to elicit mainstream demand. This is probably the biggest obstacle to adoption of cryptocurrencies. It’s why Facebook chose not to use proof of work, the process that Bitcoin uses to reach agreement among the blockchain network’s nodes, citing its “poor performance and high energy (and environmental) costs.”

    If the high-powered roster of financial firms and technology companies beat Ethereum to the punch on proof of stake, it would be ironic: public blockchains are supposed to disrupt Big Tech, not the other way around.

    On top of all that, how serious is Facebook is about achieving decentralization and becoming a “real” cryptocurrency? Perhaps the fact it has made a big song and dance about being decentralized is simply a way of offsetting the firm’s appalling record on data privacy. But will users demand that the currency be more decentralized—or will many simply not care?

    #Crypto_monnaie #Monnaie_numérique #Libra #Facebook

  • « Ubérisation », taxi et capitalisme | L’Humanité
    https://www.humanite.fr/uberisation-taxi-et-capitalisme-629816

    Jeudi, 5 Janvier, 2017

    Une tribune de Jean-Marc Domart, retraité CGT, ancien secrétaire de la Chambre Syndicale des Cochers-Chauffeurs (CGT-Taxis Paris), de 1993 à 2003.

    La question du salaire et de la protection sociale du salarié est, depuis qu’existe le salariat, le point d’achoppement entre l’employé qui rend le service rémunéré et l’employeur qui y a recours, le bénéfice pour ce dernier étant d’autant plus important que la rémunération du premier est faible. La plus-value, dit-on...

    Le terme d’ « ubérisation » est mis à la mode tel une « marque »(comme celui de « frigidaire » pour les réfrigérateurs) par l’apparition de cette société U.S. UBER qui « rationalise » la chose - et non seulement dans le Taxi (voir AirBNB en ce qui s’agit de l’immobilier, Deliveroo et Foodora dans le portage de repas) - par l’artifice juridique de la « mise en relation », via l’utilisation des nouvelles technologies (les « plateformes » numériques) et du camouflage qui permet au patronat de se défausser de ses responsabilités sociales, (salaire, protection sociale et fiscalité). Cependant, il ne faut pas croire que cette société soit pionnière en la matière. Car, dans le Taxi, le patronat n’a du reste jamais manqué d’imagination pour exploiter ses employés de cette manière, cela depuis plus d’un siècle, avec bien souvent, il faut l’avouer, l’assentiment des autorités officielles pour qui la délinquance en col blanc constitue un moindre mal en matière d’ordre public. Ce processus de désengagement de la puissance publique au profit du patronat est, dans ce registre, intéressant à décrire.

    Le Taxi - en termes administratifs « voiture publique de 2ème classe » -, comme ses ancêtres les fiacres à chevaux, a quand même sa spécificité, c’est que, concessionnaire d’une autorisation délivrée par la puissance publique pour son exercice sur la voie publique, les tarifs de « louage » (par la clientèle, s’entend) sont fixés par l’autorité publique et non par le patronat, ce depuis fort longtemps (18ème siècle !), ce qui fait que les préfets contrôlent en partie la rémunération, notamment si le chauffeur (autrefois cocher) ose réclamer à son passager plus qu’il n’est dû…

    De ce fait, l’employeur ne peut plus exploiter son employé que sur la part de la rémunération qu’il lui doit, à savoir sur le salaire net et différé (ou socialisé, = sa protection sociale). C’est ce qui se pratique toujours à l’heure actuelle dans les sociétés de Taxi – parisiens et autres - et peu importe la société et le mode de transport concurrentiel institué avec ce système (voitures de remise, VTC), le principe est le même : faire du profit en supprimant le salaire et la protection sociale, considérés comme des « coûts » et non comme des investissements, que cela s’appelle UBER, HEETCH ou autres d’autres domaines, avec des « travailleurs indépendants » ou « auto-entrepreneurs » (Deliveroo, « tuk-tuks » et « rickshaws » pour touristes...). C’est finalement, en fait de « progrès », le retour du tâcheron du 19ème siècle, le pétrole, la chaîne de vélo et les smartphones en plus (aux frais du travailleur, s’entend !).

    Pourquoi cela s’est-il d’abord passé dans l’industrie du Taxi, « voiture de Place de 2ème classe » ? Le progrès technique ? Que nenni, car le radio-taxi, apparu dès 1956, n’avait pas entraîné pour ça un changement de statut des chauffeurs ! Simplement parce que le chauffeur (« cocher » autrefois,,,), dont l’exercice du métier est individuel, remet la recette à l’employeur, ou plutôt la part de la recette collectée qui lui revient (dans le cas, aujourd’hui plutôt rare, du salariat, c’est avec les cotisations sociales incluses), Cela a permis à une époque aux employeurs de proclamer que les chauffeurs ne sont pas des salariés, mais des « associés ». Mais cette apparence ne résiste pas à la réalité de la subordination, plusieurs arrêts de la Cour de Cassation l’ont attesté.

    Deux choses sont venues changer la donne dans un sens de progrès pour cette profession, à savoir l’apparition du compteur horokilométrique, puis les débuts du syndicalisme et de la protection sociale,

    Les tâcherons travaillent à la tâche, par définition rémunérée forfaitairement, mais au 19ème siècle, le besoin se faisait sentir de rémunération à la mesure de celle-ci, Différentes formes de rémunération existaient alors dans le « fiacre », toutes forfaitaires, mais vu que les patrons fixaient les forfaits trop hauts, donc laissant des rémunérations trop faibles, de nombreux conflits avaient lieu sur la voie publique, indisposant un régime (le Second Empire) où l’ordre public revêtait une importance primordiale, On peut lire dans une thèse sur la Voiture de Place soutenue en juin 1912 à l’Université de Dijon l’idée que tenta alors d’imposer le Conseil Municipal de Paris en 1867 :

    Cela changeait effectivement beaucoup de choses, car un tel appareil permettait d’évaluer la somme à partager selon le travail effectué, dans un sens plus juste, D’autre part, Paris avait été agrandi en 1860 donc les distances allongées, la « loi sur les coalitions » (droit de grève) avait été votée le 25 mai 1864, et des grèves de cochers avaient eu lieu en 1865. D’autre part, la faisabilité d’un compteur étant établie, cela impliquait à terme le salariat, et on comprend que ce progrès-là n’arrangeait évidemment pas les affaires du patronat, Si des compteurs furent agréés et équipèrent des véhicules dès 1905, ils ne purent effectivement rendus obligatoires sur toutes les « voitures de place » qu’en 1912.

    La loi Waldeck-Rousseau du 21 mars 1884 autorisa la constitution des syndicats professionnels, et le Syndicat des Cochers déposa ses statuts dès juillet 1884, fut membre fondateur de la CGT au congrès de Limoges de septembre 1895, et réclama vite le statut salarial.

    Le 9 avril 1898 fut votée la loi sur les accidents de travail prévoyant la couverture par les soins de l’employeur de ses employés en cas d’accident du travail. Ce qui n’est cependant pas révolutionnaire dans sa logique, s’agissant en fin de compte de la responsabilité civile du propriétaire d’un outil pour les torts qu’il peut causer, Malheureusement, dès 1909, le patronat, pour se dégager de ses responsabilités, ne voulut pas, pour des questions de cautionnement, reconnaître la qualité de salariés de ses employés (« associés en parts » !), mais perdit la procédure. En 1928 et 1930, furent promulguées les lois sur les Assurances Sociales, où les employeurs et les employés devaient cotiser à des caisses d’assurance-maladie et maternité, et ce fut de nouveau l’occasion pour le patronat, qui régentait la profession depuis 1866, de sortir un règlement préludant à l’état de fait qui prévaut à l’heure actuelle, celui du « locataire », faux travailleur indépendant. Le Code Civil fut alors mis à contribution, par les articles 1709 (« louage de choses »), et 1713 qui permet de « louer toutes sortes de biens meubles ou immeubles ». De nombreuses manifestations eurent lieu contre cette forme d’exploitation, qui cessa lorsque sous le Front Populaire fut promulguée la loi du 13 mars 1937 reprenant l’économie de la Convention Collective du 24 juin 1936, puis l’ arrêté ministériel (Ministère du Travail dont dépendait le Taxi) du 31.12.1938. Entre temps, était paru au « J.O. » du 31 octobre 1935 un décret affiliant aux Assurances Sociales les chauffeurs de Taxi non-propriétaires des véhicules qu’ils conduisent, l’actuel article 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale . Mais si le patronat, sentant la guerre s’approcher, renia la Convention Collective, suivi de peu par les décrets-lois Daladier augmentant d’une heure quotidienne le temps de travail (26/8/1939) puis interdisant la CGT avec le PCF par le décret-loi du 26/9/1939, les textes originaux furent rétablis en 1945 lors du rétablissement du Taxi à Paris.

    La recherche de rentabilité patronale s’accommode mal du progrès social, et ce n’est pas par hasard que c’est après 1968 que ce système du « locataire » fut remis sur le tapis, A la Commission (alors) Paritaire du 20 novembre 1969 fut déposée par la Société G7 la proposition du « Statut du travailleur indépendant », rejetée le jour-même par une motion de la CGT.

    Cette société n’est pas non plus n’importe laquelle. Fondée en 1905 sous la dénomination de Compagnie Française des Automobiles de Places par le comte André Walewski, arrière-petit-fils de la comtesse polonaise Maria Walewska et d’un certain Napoléon 1er, très impliqué dans la haute finance et (déjà !) les pétroles, elle fut très tôt dans la sphère du pouvoir. Les Taxis de la Marne furent une bonne affaire pour elle, car les courses furent toutes payées au compteur, avec le carburant et même l’usure des pneus, par le ministère de la Guerre. Elle ne fut pas des dernières à pratiquer dans les années 30 le système du « locataire ». Passée dans l’après-guerre sous la coupe du constructeur automobile SIMCA - où, dans les années 60, il ne faisait pas bon d’être à la CGT du fait des milices patronales (pseudo-« syndicat » CFT) - elle fut reprise en 1962 par feu André Rousselet (ancien chef de cabinet du ministre Fr. Mitterrand entre 1954 et 1958) qui y travaillait, avec l’aide financière de F. Serfati, un riche rapatrié d’Algérie.

    La Préfecture de Police, en charge depuis le décret du 12 mars 1970 de la réglementation du Taxi Parisien, allait donner en 1973 satisfaction au « lobbying » patronal, suivie d’un mois par le Ministère de l’Intérieur dirigé par l’ultra-droitier R. Marcellin. L’ordonnance n° 73-16079 du 1er février 1973 autorisa le rétablissement de ce mode d’exploitation des autorisations (les « licences »)…et des chauffeurs ! Avec toujours comme base juridique le Code Napoléon, articles 1708 (choix entre le louage de choses et du louage de services), et bien sûr le 1709 (« louage de choses »).

    Les nombreuses manifestations et procédures organisées par la CGT n’aboutirent pas, mais les chauffeurs engagés dans ce système obtinrent par l’A. M. du 4 octobre 1976 la couverture sociale du Régime Général, cotisant sur la base forfaitaire de 70 % du plafond de la Sécurité Sociale, se référant, précisément, pour l ’affiliation à l’article du décret du 30.10.1935 concernant alors cette situation (actuellement nominé 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale, ci-dessous).

    Sans le dire expressément, mais quand même, une responsablilité est de ce fait reconnue au propriétaire et loueur du véhicule Taxi. De plus, un courrier du Ministère des Affaires Sociales du 26 janvier 1995 reconnaissait que « les locataires étaient soumis à un lien de subordination très fort » et qu’ « au titre de l’article 241-8 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale, les cotisations sociales étaient à la seule charge de l’entreprise, toute convention contraire étant nulle de plein droit »,

    Cela tombait fort bien, car la CGT-Taxis avait changé de tactique. Vu l’échec – jusqu’en Conseil d’État – des procédures du Syndicat contre l’autorité préfectorale, l’idée a été de s’en prendre, non plus à l’exécutant administratif qu’était la Préfecture de Police, mais au bénéficiaire qu’était le patronat. En conséquence, dès 1995, le Syndicat engagea des procédures en requalification des contrats de location en contrats de travail. Les bâtons dans les roues ne manquèrent pas, notamment de la part de la G7, mais le 19 décembre 2000, la décision tant attendue tomba : les contrats de locations Hatem et Labanne étaient reconnus comme des contrats de travail par la Cour de Cassation. De nombreux chauffeurs profitèrent alors de cette jurisprudence pour se faire rembourser les cotisations patronales induement payées, Cependant le Ministère s’arcboutait sur le maintien de ce système, précisant qu’« une Cassation n’était pas une loi » !

    Une autre chose à remarquer, c’est que le Régime Général, à la différence du Régime Artisanal, comprend la couverture accident du travail, l’article 412-2 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale s’appliquant « aux travailleurs concernés par l’article 311-3 ». Et aussi que l’article R 312-5 du même code précise dans son alinéa 2 que : [en ce qui concerne les travailleurs concernés par l’art, 311-3, les obligations incombant à l’employeur sont mises : [§1…] - §2 : dans les cas prévus au 7° et 8° dudit article, à la charge des personnes et sociétés qui fournissent les voitures, des exploitations et des concessionnaires. Par conséquent la reconnaissance de la responsabilité du propriétaire de l’outil de travail quelque soit la personne morale !

    Suite à cela, nouvelle offensive du patronat qui, sous l’influence de plusieurs rapports (Attali, Cahuc-Kramarz, Chassigneux), fit, malgré de nombreuses manifestations de Taxis, adopter par les pouvoirs publics en mai 2008 avec la signature des seules organisations patronales et sans la participation de celles des chauffeurs, un Protocole instaurant certains transports concurrentiels non-taxis - très prisés des médias (les motos- « taxis ») -, le rallongement d’une heure du temps de travail quotidien dans les entreprises, et la « sécurisation des relations juridiques entre loueurs et locataires », à savoir que – est-il précisé dans le rapport Chassigneux (§G (1) p. 22, du 20 mars 2008 - sont prévues des dispositions « afin d’éviter que le juge requalifie les contrats de locations en contrats de travail », Visiblement les arrêts de Cassation du 19 décembre 2000 avaient fortement traumatisé les « Loueurs »…

    L’affaire n’allait pas s’arrêter là, car le 1.10.2014 fut promulguée la Loi Thévenoud qui, rajoutant des concurrences supplémentaires légales (VTC), instituait dans le Taxi les « locataires-gérants » (art 5-I, §2), précisant au III du même article que l’article 311-3-7 du Code de la Sécurité Sociale ne s’appliquait pas audit locataire gérant ! Cela, comme l’a dit Thévenoud lui-même, pour « humaniser le système de la location » !

    Comme « humanisation », on pouvait trouver mieux. Ce système reste inhumain, car forfaitaire, indépendamment de la fluctation de la clientèle, et se base en réalité sur une forte dégradation de la protection sociale. Car si les cotisations sociales artisanales peuvent être (légèrement) moins chères que celles du Régime Général, elles ne comportent pas celles de l’accident de travail, ni le seul avantage final (cher payé) du système locatif « normal », celui de bonnes cotisations pour la retraite, Cela revient, en fin de compte, exactement à la proposition de la société G7 en 1969 ! Finalement, l’ « humanisation » en question sera pour le patronat, qui n’aura même plus à s’occuper du reversement des cotisations à l’URSSAF ni de la détaxation du carburant, et sera déresponsabilisé de l’accident de travail. Quant au public, le statut échappant toujours au contrat de travail, donc sans embauche de chauffeurs de relais dans les sociétés, le problème éternel de l’absence de taxis aux heures de pointe restera non résolu, avec la seule alternative du transport esclavagiste et sans garanties publiques du VTC. Car il faut savoir ce qu’implique le salariat conventionnel : 2 jours de repos consécutifs à 6 jours de travail, comblés par l’emploi d’un chauffeur de relais, par conséquent l’emploi de 4 chauffeurs pour 3 voitures, dans les sociétés, afin d’assurer la continuité du service Taxi. Ce qui, sur les plans de l’emploi (+ 2500) et du service, rend inutiles les VTC. Preuve que l’intérêt du patronat passe bien avant celui du service au public et des chauffeurs !

    Enfin, dernière chose, et non des moindres, sur le plan des principes républicains. En plus de ce « statut » de tâcheron, au même titre que celui de l’auto-entrepreneur, s’ajoute la négation de la spécificité du Taxi, « voiture publique de 2ème classe ». L’autorisation de Taxi (improprement nommée « licence »), ne l’oublions pas, est un bien public, Depuis la loi du 13 mars 1937, il était précisé que la location de l’autorisation de Taxi était interdite sous peine de son retrait, Normal, depuis l’Abolition des Privilèges de 1789 (La « Nuit du 4 Août » 1789), les biens publics étaient devenus inaliénables, et à ce propos, pour ce qui s’agit de la profession, le privilège Perreau de la Voiture de Place avait été de ce fait résilié par l’Assemblée Nationale Constituante le 19 novembre 1790, et racheté par la Ville de Paris pour 420,000 livres, une somme importante à l’époque. En 1866, cela a a coûté bien plus cher encore, et pour la même raison (47 annuités de 360.000 francs/or) ! Curieux qu’une telle énormité ait échappé au législateur et à nombre d’organisations de la profession. Mais « plus c’est gros, plus ça passe » !

    Cela va de pair avec la concurrence des VTC - d’ailleurs approuvée par J.-J. Augier, l’ex-PDG de la G7 et trésorier de campagne de F. Hollande (Paris-Match,19.6.2014) - la casse d’une profession de service au public, en tant que transport à garanties publiques, dont l’État démissionnaire se défausse par paliers, pour nous livrer à la voracité des multinationales, pour lesquelles la démocratie n’existe pas.

    Raison intrinsèque qui a motivé les imposantes manifestations de la profession en février dernier, car c’était le prélude à ce qui était planifié pour le reste du monde du travail, à savoir permettre par les lois Macron et El Khomri le règne sans partage d’un patronat esclavagiste, accumulant des profits sans avoir aucun compte à rendre.

    En guise de « transition énergétique », on peut toujours, en hauts lieux, se donner bonne conscience à dire aux travailleurs (surtout à eux !) de circuler à vélo, et à piétonniser des voies rapides. Mais quelle logique écologique y a-t-il de rajouter sur la voie publique sans véritable besoin - sinon idéologique - des transports non limités en nombre ni en heures de circulation ? « Y ’a comme un défaut ! » …

    On n’arrête pas le « progrès », car nous avons actuellement un gouvernement – aux dires des médias - qui est contre « l’immobilisme ». Et qui bouge, c’est vrai ... mais en marche arrière accélérée !

    Une publicité de la SNCF disait jadis que « le progrès ne vaut que s’il est partagé par tous »,

    La lutte n’est donc pas terminée,..
    Jean-Marc Dommart, retraité CGT

    #Frankreich #Taxi #Uber #Uberisation #Gewerkschaft

  • Uber’s Path of Destruction
    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/ubers-path-of-destruction

    In reality, Uber’s platform does not include any technological breakthroughs, and Uber has done nothing to “disrupt” the eco­nomics of providing urban car services. What Uber has disrupted is the idea that competitive consumer and capital markets will maximize overall economic welfare by rewarding companies with superior efficiency. Its multibillion dollar subsidies completely distorted marketplace price and service signals, leading to a massive misallocation of resources. Uber’s most important innovation has been to produce staggering levels of private wealth without creating any sustainable benefits for consumers, workers, the cities they serve, or anyone else.

  • Robert Reich : Hey Uber, the gig is up – Alternet.org
    https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/robert-reich-hey-uber-the-gig-is-up

    par Robert Reich, ancien ministre du travail sous Clinton

    Uber just filed its first quarterly report as a publicly traded company. Although it lost $1bn, investors may still do well because the losses appear to be declining.

    Uber drivers, on the other hand, aren’t doing well. According to a recent study, about half of New York’s Uber drivers are supporting families with children, yet 40% depend on Medicaid and another 18% on food stamps.

    It’s similar elsewhere in the new American economy. Last week, the New York Times reported that fewer than half of Google workers are full-time employees. Most are temps and contractors receiving a fraction of the wages and benefits of full-time Googlers, with no job security.

    Across America, the fastest-growing category of new jobs is gig work – contract, part-time, temp, self-employed and freelance. And a growing number of people work for staffing firms that find them gig jobs.

    The standard economic measures – unemployment and income – look better than Americans feel

    Estimates vary but it’s safe to say almost a quarter of American workers are now gig workers. Which helps explain why the standard economic measures – unemployment and income – look better than Americans feel.

    Gig workers are about 30% cheaper because companies pay them only when they need them, and don’t have to spend on the above-mentioned labor protections.

    Increasingly, businesses need only a small pool of “talent” anchored in the enterprise – innovators and strategists responsible for the firm’s competitive strength.

    Other workers are becoming fungible, sought only for reliability and low cost. So, in effect, economic risks are shifting to them.

    Gig work is making capitalism harsher. Unless government defines legitimate gig work more narrowly and provides stronger safety nets for gig workers, gig capitalism cannot endure.

    #Travail #Ubérisation #Uber #Gig_economy

  • Passengers May Pay a Lot More. Drivers Won’t Accept Much Less. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/business/passengers-drivers-pay-uber-lyft.html

    Ce que l’économie classique peut nous dire de l’avenir de Uber et Lyft...

    Uber and Lyft, the two leading ride-share companies, have lost a great deal of money and don’t project a profit any time soon.

    Yet they are both trading on public markets with a combined worth of more than $80 billion. Investors presumably expect that these companies will some day find a path to profitability, which leaves us with a fundamental question: Will that extra money come mainly from higher prices paid by consumers or from lower wages paid to drivers?

    Old-fashioned economics provides an answer: Passengers, not drivers, are likely to be the main source of financial improvement, at least within the next few years, mainly because of something called “relative price sensitivity.”

    This conclusion may seem to run counter to popular wisdom. Wall Street analysts have suggested that Uber and Lyft will need to squeeze their drivers. Those workers are quite concerned about the possibility. Thousands went on a one-day strike before Uber’s initial public offering in May to demand higher pay and more benefits.

    #Uber #Economie #Economie_comportementale

  • California is cracking down on the gig economy
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/30/18642535/california-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors

    California just took a major step in rewriting the rules of the gig economy.

    The state Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that would make it harder for companies to label workers as independent contractors instead of employees, a common practice that has allowed businesses to skirt state and federal labor laws. The bill will now go to the state Senate.

    Hundreds of thousands of independent contractors in California, ranging from Uber and Amazon drivers to manicurists and exotic dancers, would likely become employees under the bill.

    That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage. It also means companies are fuming about the added cost.

    The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business, and (c) has an independent business in that industry. If they don’t meet all three of those conditions, then they have to be classified as employees.

  • Uber loses more than $1bn in first quarterly report since IPO
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/30/uber-first-quarterly-report-ipo-losses

    Company said it now had 93 million customers who are active on a monthly basis, 33% higher than the same period last year Uber lost more than $1bn in the first three months of the year, the ride-sharing company announced on Thursday. Releasing its first quarterly report since it became a public company, Uber said it now had 93 million customers who are active on a monthly basis, 33% higher than the same period last year. The company’s revenues were $3.1bn for the three months, 20% higher (...)

    #Uber #bénéfices

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d6f159e2019f8383151b875fd5e184c8d8b174cd/0_80_2432_1459/master/2432.jpg

  • Betrogene Kutscher in New York - Artikelsammlung


    2014 koste eine Taxikonzession in New York mehr als eine Million Dollar

    Wie Kredite New York’s Taxifahrer ruinierten
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784212

    Taxi loan abuses part of a broader pattern in New York | American Banker
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784207

    How New York could respond to the taxi medallion lending crisis | CSNY
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784206

    How We Investigated the New York Taxi Medallion Bubble - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784205

    Opinion | How New York Taxi Drivers Got Mired in Debt - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784204

    Taxi Industry Leaders Got Rich. Drivers Paid the Price. - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784203

    De Blasio calls for probe of taxi lenders
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784200

    Inquiries Into Reckless Loans to Taxi Drivers Ordered by State Attorney General and Mayor - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784199

    Bad loans were killing the taxi industry long before Uber and Lyft: report
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784197

    As Thousands of Taxi Drivers Were Trapped in Loans, Top Officials Counted the Money - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784196

    ‘They Were Conned’: How Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers - The New York Times
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784193

    Und zum Abschluß etwas Lustigeres aus New York:

    NYCTAXINEWS/CURRENT NEWS
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784190

    #USA #New_York #Taxi #Betrug #Ausbeutung

  • Taxi loan abuses part of a broader pattern in New York | American Banker
    https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/taxi-loan-abuses-part-of-a-broader-pattern-in-new-york

    An investigation by The New York Times earlier this week suggested that the massive collapse in New York City taxi medallion prices since 2014 was not primarily the result of new competition from Uber and Lyft. Instead it was the inevitable outcome of unsustainable lending practices.

    Low-paid cab drivers who dreamed of becoming their own bosses took out loans that required them to pay $1 million or more. The payments often covered only the interest that borrowers owed, and interest rates spiked if the loans were not repaid within a few years. From the lenders’ standpoint, the loans only made sense as long as medallion prices continued to rise.

    Cabbies, many of them immigrants, suffered harsh consequences after taking out loans with terms they did not fully understand.

    Cab drivers who dreamed of becoming their own bosses took out loans that required them to pay $1 million or more.

    Since the articles were published, various politicians have floated potential responses that are narrowly targeted at taxi medallion lending.

    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a probe of taxi loan brokers. Other local officials suggested that the city should buy onerous loans at discounted prices and then forgive much of the debt.

    Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the National Credit Union Administration to conduct a review of supervisory practices at institutions that engage in taxi medallion lending.

    But taxi drivers are not the only businesspeople who regularly get deceived by unscrupulous lenders. So do contractors, restaurateurs and the owners of various other kinds of struggling small businesses. Many high-cost business lenders are based in New York, where unusually favorable laws provide a haven to these companies.

    Some aspects of the New York City taxi loan market were unique. For example, local officials had a vested interest in keep medallion prices high, since the city was generating revenue from the proceeds of sales. Indeed, the Times showed that government officials enabled lending that has put many borrowers in dire straits.

    “The City of New York, more or less, is our partner,” Andrew Murstein, president of Medallion Financial, said in a 2011 interview.

    But in other ways, the loans to cab drivers resembled deceptively marketed loans that have ensnared a wide variety of cash-strapped small-business owners.

    Because the New York City taxi loans were classified as business loans, rather than consumer loans, they did not have to include standard disclosures regarding interest rates. They often included large fees and terms that unsophisticated borrowers did not understand.

    And according to the Times, some taxi medallion lenders used a tool that under New York law offers a uniquely powerful way to collect on business debt. Lenders in the Empire State can require applicants for small-business loans to sign a document called a confession of judgment, which prevents them from contesting any subsequent allegation that they have fallen behind on their payments.

    A Bloomberg News investigation last year found that merchant cash advance companies, which offer high-cost financing to small businesses across the country, have at times abused New York’s court system by forging documents and lying about how much money they are owed in order to obtain speedy judgments that cannot be contested by the borrower.

    Small businesses that use merchant cash advances are required to make daily payments based on a percentage of their daily revenue. The merchant cash advance firms avoid complying with New York’s strict usury rules by classifying their financing not as a loan, but rather as a purchase of the company’s future credit card receipts.

    The Bloomberg articles also chronicled the role of New York City marshals — mayoral appointees who enforce the court judgments, get a cut of the proceeds, and have been accused in some cases of improperly seeking to collect money outside of the city.

    As evidence of business lending abuses in New York has mounted, little change has occurred at the state level, though there does appear to be a growing appetite for reform.

    Last year, the New York State Department of Financial Services argued in a report that borrower protection laws and regulations should apply equally to all consumer lending and small-business lending activities.

    The Bloomberg investigation reportedly sparked probes by the New York attorney general’s office and the Manhattan district attorney’s office. On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the Federal Trade Commission has also opened an investigation of potentially unfair or deceptive practices in the merchant cash advance industry.

    The loan practices that hurt taxi drivers are part of a broader pattern in New York, which has become the nation’s capital for predatory business lending. It remains to be seen whether state lawmakers and regulators will connect the dots.

    Bankshot is American Banker’s column for real-time analysis of today’s news.

    #USA #New_York #Taxi #Betrug #Ausbeutung

  • How New York could respond to the taxi medallion lending crisis | CSNY
    https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/infrastructure/how-new-york-could-respond-to-taxi-medallion-lending-crisis.html

    Experts and lawmakers weigh in on easing the pain of burdened medallion owners and preventing predatory lending in the future.
    By ANNIE MCDONOUGH
    MAY 22, 2019

    After a two-part New York Times investigation into predatory lending practices for taxi medallions delineated how industry leaders and government agencies participated in, encouraged or ignored risky lending, calls for action sprang forth – sometimes from the very same officials or agencies that had been asleep at the switch.

    Various deceptive or exploitative lending practices contributed to the rise and precipitous fall of taxi medallions in New York City. Medallions worth $200,000 in 2002 rose to more than $1 million in 2014, before crashing to less than $200,000. The bubble was inflated by loans made without down payments, requirements that loans had to be paid back in three years or extended with inflated interest rates, and interest-only loans that required borrowers to forfeit legal rights and give up much of their income. Borrowers – typically low-income, immigrant drivers – were left in the lurch when the bubble burst, an event that the taxi industry has long blamed primarily on the rise of app-based ride hail services like Uber and Lyft. While the rise of app-based ride hail did contribute to the now-ailing taxi industry, the revelations in the Times show government officials – including the Taxi and Limousine Commission which acted as a “cheerleader” for medallion sales – ignored the warning signs.

    Since Sunday, when the first Times story was published, New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced an inquiry into the business and lending practices that “may have created” the crisis, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a joint probe by the TLC, Department of Finance and Department of Consumer Affairs into the brokers who helped arrange the loans, Sen. Chuck Schumer called for an investigation into the credit unions involved in the lending, and members of the New York City Council and state Legislature, and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, have called for hearings and legislation to resolve the issue.

    The various proposals raised thus far are unlikely to fully address the damage caused to many medallion owners, some experts say. The Times investigation found that since 2016, more than 950 taxi drivers have filed for bankruptcy, with thousands more still suffering under the crippling loans. This is combined with a string of taxi and other professional drivers who have committed suicide in the past year and a half.

    Some of the solutions offered have focused on preventing the kind of reckless lending practices exhibited for taxi medallions. Stringer called on state lawmakers to close a loophole that allows lenders to classify their loans as business deals – as opposed to consumer loans, which have more protections for borrowers. A bill introduced last week by state Sen. Jessica Ramos would also establish a program to assist medallion owners who are unable to obtain financing, refinancing or restructuring of an existing loan through a loan loss reserve. State Sen. James Sanders and Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski, who chair the state Legislature’s committees on banks, declined to comment.

    But classifying loans for medallions as consumer loans might not be appropriate, said Bruce Schaller, a transportation expert and former deputy commissioner at the New York City Department of Transportation. “I think the difficult question with the individual drivers is that they are in business, they are planning to make money off of their increase in medallion prices. Should they have the same protections as someone who is taking out a mortgage on a house, who is presumed to be very vulnerable?” he asked. “That may well be the case, but (drivers) are also in a business in a way that the prospective homeowner isn’t.”

    The TLC told the Times that it is the responsibility of bank examiners to control lending practices, while the state Department of Financial Services said that it supervised some of the banks involved, but often deferred to federal inspectors. “The TLC is gravely concerned that unsound lending practices have hurt taxi drivers and has raised these concerns publicly,” Acting Commissioner Bill Heinzen said in an emailed statement. “Banks and credit unions are regulated by federal agencies that have substantial oversight powers that the TLC does not have. The TLC has taken steps within our regulatory power to help owners and drivers by easing regulatory burdens and working with City Council to limit the number of for-hire vehicles on the road. We have pushed banks to restructure loan balances and payment amounts to reflect actual trip revenue.”

    Seth Stein, a spokesman for de Blasio, also mentioned interest in preventing risky lending practices. “We are deeply concerned about predatory lending in the medallion business,” Stein wrote in an email. “While TLC has no direct regulatory oversight over lenders – that is squarely under the purview of federal regulators – we continue to look for every means of helping owners and drivers make ends meet. We’ve discontinued medallion sales, secured a cap on app-based for-hire-vehicles, and we strongly urge federal regulators to do more as well.”

    But remedies at the federal level may not be realistic, according to David King, a professor of urban planning at Arizona State University, with a speciality in transportation and land use planning. “There doesn’t seem to be any appetite for what would be reasonable lending standards. Reasonable standards that would include verifiable collateral or values that were based on something other than made-up dollar amounts,” King said, adding that he doesn’t see those changes being made under the current administration. “The housing bubble of 11 years ago, I think that was a sufficiently national concern that has inspired some movement from Washington. Whereas I think something like an asset bubble in New York, just like an asset bubble in one region, isn’t going to be enough to spur federal legislation.”

    Schaller said that while lending regulation fixes could be beneficial for preventing this kind of crisis in other industries, there’s action that can be taken now by the city to alleviate some pain. “The real question is, if the city now decides that they were part of the fraud, then they should refund the money,” he said. “It’s one thing to close a loophole, it’s another thing to decide that you need to make restitution.”

    City Councilman Mark Levine, who has been working on legislation along those lines for nearly a year, agreed that the city needs to take responsibility. “There has been a lot of attention to the whole industry of lenders and brokers who push these loans on the drivers in ways that were not transparent and really deceived them, and may very well constitute some sort of legal fraud,” he said. “But the city itself also bears responsibility for this, because we were selling medallions with the goal of bringing in revenue to the city and we were promoting them and pumping them up in ways that I think masks the true risks that drivers were taking on. And, most egregiously, we had a round of sales in 2014 when it was abundantly clear that we were headed for a price drop, because by that point app-based competitors had emerged and there were other challenges.”

    Levine’s vision for immediately helping those drivers still suffering under unsustainable loans would involve the city acquiring the loans from lenders who either cannot or will not be flexible with borrowers, and then forgiving the debts. Though the bill hasn’t been introduced yet, the idea is to partially finance the buy-back by placing a surcharge on app-based ride-hail companies like Uber and Lyft. Levine’s office is still working on confirming that the City Council would have the authority to levy that kind of surcharge. If it doesn’t, they would encourage that action be taken in Albany.

    But, as the Times’ investigation into the issue has revealed, much of the damage to drivers and medallion owners has already been done – including to the hundreds of medallion owners who have declared bankruptcy. “If someone paid $800,000 for a medallion loan and paid part of that off, and has had their house repossessed, now Mark Levine is saying, ‘well, we’ll just refund whatever’s left dangling out there,’” Schaller said. “If I were on the losing end of that bargain, I’d say I want my $800,000 back.”

    The idea of a buy-back, Levine admitted, is not a perfect solution, but it’s one he said can help the thousands of medallion owners stuck right now. “It would not address that kind of horrible, horrible hardship,” he said, referring to those owners who have forfeited assets and sustained other losses.

    If there’s any upside to the stories relayed in the Times about medallion owners financially devastated by bad loans and the failing taxi industry, it may be that it’s a call to action – even if it’s coming too late for some. “It’s had a dramatic impact on the interest in the Council about finding solutions,” Levine said of the heavy punch packed by the Times’ investigation. “It gives new impetus to this effort, which is good, because it’s complicated, and it’s going to require a political push to make it happen. The revelations in this article made that more likely.”

    Annie McDonough is a tech and policy reporter at City & State.

    #USA #New_York #Taxi #Betrug #Ausbeutung

  • How We Investigated the New York Taxi Medallion Bubble - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/reader-center/taxi-medallion-investigation.html

    It took a year, 450 interviews and a database built from scratch to answer a simple question: Why had anyone ever agreed to pay $1 million for the right to drive a yellow cab?

    By Brian M. Rosenthal
    May 22, 2019

    Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

    The story started, like a lot of stories seem to, with President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

    On April 9, 2018, the F.B.I. raided Mr. Cohen’s office, thrusting him into the national spotlight. The next day, the top editors at The New York Times asked five reporters to start working on a profile. I was one of them.

    The other reporters researched Mr. Cohen’s family, his legal career, his real estate interests and, of course, his work for the president. I took on the last piece of his business empire: his ownership of 30 New York taxi medallions, the coveted permits needed to own a yellow cab.

    After a few weeks of reporting, the team learned enough to publish our story on Mr. Cohen. And I discovered enough to know what I wanted to investigate next.

    At that time, the taxi industry was becoming a big story. Mr. Cohen had owned his medallions as an investment, counting on them rising in value because of the city’s decision to issue only about 13,000 permits. But thousands of the medallions were owned by drivers themselves, and two driver-owners had just died by suicide. Public officials were talking about how the price of a medallion had plummeted from over $1 million to under $150,000. Most were blaming ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.

    I had a different question: Why had anybody ever paid $1 million for the right to the grueling job of being a cabby?

    When I pursue an investigation, I identify the single most important question that I am trying to answer, and orient all of my reporting around it. (For example, why did it cost more to build subway track in New York than anywhere else in the world? Or why did Texas have the lowest special education rate in the country?) In this case, I ended up interviewing about 450 people, and I asked almost all the same question: Why did the price reach $1 million? It became my North Star.

    I heard plenty of theories, but I began to get somewhere only when I had an epiphany: No driver-owner had ever really paid close to $1 million for a medallion. On paper, thousands of low-income immigrants had. But while they had poured their life savings into their purchase, virtually all had signed loans for most of the cost — and never really had a chance to repay.

    I needed to examine as many loans as possible, to see if they were as unusual and reckless — and predatory — as some of my sources said they were. But how?

    I got a lead from an unexpected source: the lenders themselves.

    After prices had started crashing, the lenders in the industry had tried to squeeze money out of borrowers. Many of them had filed lawsuits against borrowers — lawsuits which had to include copies of the loans.

    I ultimately reviewed 500 of these loans, and I saw disturbing patterns: Almost none of them included a large down payment. Almost all of them required the borrower to repay everything within three years, which was impossible. There were a lot of interest-only loans, and a wide variety of fees, including charges for paying loans off too early. Many of the loans required borrowers to sign away their legal rights.

    Armed with the loan documents, I started calling dozens of current and former industry bankers, brokers, lawyers and investors. Some pointed me to disclosures that lenders had filed with the government, which were enormously helpful. Others shared internal records, which were even better.

    New York City did not have reliable digital data on medallion sales, so I used paper records to build a database of all the 10,888 sales between 1995 and 2018. The city taxi commission had never analyzed the financial records submitted by medallion buyers, so I did. Nobody knew how many medallion owners had gone bankrupt because of the crisis, so I convinced my boss to pay a technology company, Epiq, to create a program that sped through court records and spat out a tentative list — and then two news assistants helped me verify every result.

    As I dug into the data and the documents, I sought out driver-owners. I wanted to understand what they had been through. To find them, I went to Kennedy International Airport.

    The fare from taking someone from the airport into Manhattan can make a cabby’s day, and so drivers wait in line for hours. And over several visits during a couple of months, I waited with them, striking up conversations outside a food stand run by a Greek family and next to pay phones that had stopped working years ago. After talking briefly, I asked if I could visit their homes and meet their friends.

    In all, I met 200 taxi drivers, including several I interviewed through translators because they did not speak English fluently. (Some of those men still had signed loans of up to $1 million.) One by one, they told me how they had come to New York seeking the American dream, worked hard and gotten trapped in loans they did not understand, which often made them give up almost all of their monthly income. Several said that after the medallion bubble burst, wiping out their savings and their futures, they had contemplated suicide. One said he had already attempted it.

    The day after we began publishing our findings, city officials announced they were exploring ways to help these driver-owners, and the mayor and state attorney general said they were going to investigate the people who channeled them into the loans.

    In the end, the three front-page stories that we published this week about the taxi industry barely mentioned Mr. Cohen at all.

    But they did something much more important: They told the stories of Mohammed Hoque, of Jean Demosthenes and of Wael Ghobrayal.

    Brian M. Rosenthal is an investigative reporter on the Metro Desk. Previously, he covered state government for the Houston Chronicle and for The Seattle Times. @brianmrosenthal

    #USA #New_York #Taxi #Betrug #Ausbeutung