
Jeremy Corbyn: Imagine an Uber run co-operatively by their drivers - doener
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/919161491668029440
======
speeq
I used a local minicab company once to get to the airport to catch an early
morning flight from Stansted. Found their website using Google, booked and
paid online. Called the office the day before travel just to confirm the
booking and they said it's all good.

The next morning I get a call from a rather rude operator - just minutes
before they were scheduled to pick me up - telling me that I haven't paid the
full amount for the ride. I told them that I booked using their website and
paid online with PayPal. He replied that he doesn't know why the website
didn't show the correct amount but if I don't pay an additional £30 to the
driver they won't give me a ride. I agreed because I just wanted to get to the
airport asap and not deal with finding another company.

The lesson I learned here was: I don't trust minicab companies to be able to
deal with the tech behind something like Uber. Of course, this was just one
bad experience with a single company but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth.

------
umanwizard
Well, minicab drivers had all the time in the world to band together and
invent something like Uber, and they never did.

Capitalism has plenty of problems, but let's not pretend it doesn't have
advantages too.

~~~
rayiner
That’s a bit of spin right there. Taxi companies could never “invent something
like Uber.” Meter and fare regulations precluded the use of smart phones
instead of approved meters, and surge pricing (which allows Uber to offer
cheaper rides most of the time and make up for it during periods of high
demand). Huge amounts of VC money and ignoring taxi regulations allowed Uber
to “invent something like Uber.”

~~~
dagw
_Taxi companies could never “invent something like Uber.”_

Of course they could. All the regulations you mentioned are only there because
the Taxi companies lobbied hard for them. Had they lobbied half as hard to
have the regulations loosened they could have gotten any regulations they
wanted. The taxi companies bet big on using regulation to entrench their
position and avoid competition rather than on improving their product. History
will tell if it was a good bet or not, but so far it isn't looking too good.

~~~
rayiner
Do you have a source for your elaborate narrative history of taxicab
regulation?

In reality, modern taxi regulations date back to the 1930s, when the
prevailing view was that consumer protection was best served by a combination
of limiting competition and government price regulation. This was all
happening at around the same time as the government rate-regulated other
transportation industries: busses, freight trucking, and airlines.

------
mdasen
I think the issue is that there aren't any profits, just billions in losses.

I think where a co-op would fail is that it would have to charge higher prices
as the drivers wouldn't want to sustain (and pay for) losses for many years.
If the co-op owned company charged 20-80% more than Uber, but offered drivers
ownership and/or other benefits, would it bleed enough drivers from Uber or
would enough drivers stick with Uber that it would be a viable and cheaper
alternative for riders?

This isn't a new idea. Juno planned to have drivers own 50% of equity
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(company)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_\(company\)))
and someone tried to create a driver-owned Uber named Swift
([https://www.dailydot.com/debug/swift-uber-lyft-driver-
app/](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/swift-uber-lyft-driver-app/)). However,
given the costs associated with effectively competing are high - especially as
Uber subsidizes rides.

In the long run, there won't be drivers and Uber has mentioned a bleak future
for its company if it doesn't get to driver-less cars sooner rather than
later. A solution with drivers won't compete against a driver-less solution
regardless of ownership.

Even in the medium term where Uber will be using drivers, they have a large
pile of money to use as a weapon against alternatives - and there are more
driver-focused alternatives. Fasten has launched in two cities and takes $1
per ride rather than 20-30% of the fare. But Uber has a lot of money to
encourage riders to use Uber and encourage drivers they might worry about
switching.

Corbyn is taking the attitude that a company like Uber is making all the money
while the workers aren't getting their fair share. But Uber isn't profitable
and it's unclear how much of that is expansion into new markets and how much
of that is the marketing and subsidies needed to keep the business rolling in
current markets. Would ridership decline significantly with 20% higher fares?
Would you be able to retain enough drivers without the constant marketing to
get new drivers? Uber launched in 2009 during the peak in unemployment. Today,
unemployment is near all-time lows which makes recruiting and retaining
drivers much more challenging.

Ultimately, a driver-owned co-op sounds great, but where would the money come
from? Would drivers be willing to take home less for share of the company?
Would riders be willing to pay more knowing that it was a "good" company?

~~~
confounded
At least from my reading of the tweet, he appears to be saying that a
cooperatively owned version _could exist_ , not making a prediction that it
will, and will win the cab wars because of innate properties of cooperatives.

I understand your questions are probably rhetorical, but

> _Ultimately, a driver-owned co-op sounds great, but where would the money
> come from?_

I could imagine banks and governments being interested in funding a good
proposal.

> _Would drivers be willing to take home less for share of the company?_

I’m not sure if they would need to take home less. But, being a driver is a
more enterprising job than you might imagine. Most drivers work for
themselves, and commonly minicab companies in London are put together by (ex)
drivers clubbing together. Even drivers who have only worked for Uber have to
think relatively in a relatively entrepreneurial fashion to make it work for
them.

> _Would riders be willing to pay more knowing that it was a "good" company?_

If the rest of the consumer-facing economy is anything to go by, the answer is
quite possibly yes.

Organic food, fair trade, paying a premium for domestic manufacture etc. are
all doing rather well (though of course, cheap stuff made by monopolies will
do better).

I think a large part of the reason Lyft exist (also VC funded and subsidized!)
is that they’re less toxic than Uber, and pay drivers slightly more.

------
austenallred
Who would bear the risk? Who would bear the losses?

Also, what would happen to bad drivers on the system, would they get fired
like Uber fires them? What if a ride is in a spot they don’t want to go to,
what happens if they don’t go? What happens when a driver takes a bad route
for extra fare? What happens if they get told their car smells bad or is
unsafe or they’re driving aggressively or are using the phone to talk to some
random person during the trip?

The first time I got in an Uber the driver gave me candy and a bottle of
water, charged my phone. Will the taxi co op do that?

Uber is so much more than just an app to order a taxi. It created a new
economy with new incentives around ride sharing. It’s not just better because
it’s an app, and it’s not just better because it’s private. It also forces
drivers to do things taxis don’t want to when it’s netter for the customer.

Does anyone seriously think a co-operative Uber would be able to compete with
Uber without making Uber illegal?

~~~
rayiner
Is it better? It occurs to me that one of the reasons that cab drivers are
relatively rude is because they’re insulated from grinding feedback. Uber
drivers, in contrast, are terrified of reprisal from Uber. They’re paid like
independent contractors, but under the microscope and can be “fired” like
employees.

Is that really the desired end game? Everyone being micro-optimied under
threats of losing their jobs, like Wal-Mart and Amazon employees?

~~~
vixen99
Why shouldn't consistently rude drivers be sacked? Putting employment above
customer service is putting the cart before the horse and is a lousy business
model. Businesses that go bust don't employ anyone.

------
harigov
It's a little too early for something like that to happen. The reason being
that a lot of technology that goes into optimizing routes, predicting user
locations, developing ML models, etc., requires significant amount of
expertise. Uber invested a lot of money and effort into this and that gives
them an edge over other competitors. Few years down the line, many of these
technologies will be readily available off the shelf as either commercial
products or open source software. Even then, for drivers to unite and run a
business is hard but at least they will have fewer challenges to deal with.

All said, I do believe that ride sharing transportation should be treated like
a utility with some regulations to ensure fairness; but this is not the time.
This is the growth phase of the industry. Any regulations at this time will
just slow them down and hurt society at large.

~~~
Waterluvian
I strongly disagree that any of that technology is needed to run a ride share
co-op. It all sounds nice and helps justify silicon valley's relevance in
these industries. But really, you just need some basic business
infrastructure, a request ride app, and drivers with a growing wisdom about
the needs of their region.

~~~
harigov
To run a ride share co-op? Sure, you can run it without any of that
technology. To run an _efficient_ ride sharing service? That's where all of
this technology matters. Think of competition between companies that are
efficient vs inefficient. The one that is efficient will eat the other for
breakfast.

~~~
Waterluvian
I'm picturing a single employee per shift whose job is to keep a simple GIS
updated with a generalized map of demand density. Add markers for relevant
info like major events that will affect demand. This individual could also be
one of the CSR's jobs.

I'm picturing this service being unique per region, so the co-opers are all
locals who grok their region.

Give the drivers these data and they will naturally find balance. They're
intelligent people who are motivated by efficiency. You just need an
organizational core to supply the right data and infrastructure.

I feel frustrated by this idea that we need to replace the best source of
wisdom we have: our drivers, with expensive technologies. It makes a simple
problem complex. Feels like silicon valley is putting my juice in a bag to
squeeze.

~~~
harigov
Well, your entire business will depend upon that single employee doing his job
while remaining sharp to take care of all edge cases. Given that you need one
like that in every city, your chances of finding such person to provide
consistent service across the board are slim. Software is just automating
decision making process of such an ideal individual without any human
downsides. It is infinitely scalable and consistent across the board.

------
AzzieElbab
Imagine an Uber run co-operatively by their drivers, collectively controlling
their futures, with profits shared or re-invested... subsidizing rides from
their own pockets

------
jarym
I bet if you asked Corbyn to pump up the cash for Uber's losses over the past
few years he'll put his tail between his legs and head for a hasty retreat.

Taxi drivers had years to do what uber did. They didn't, they were often
horrible - all manner of dirty tricks to keep prices artificially high whilst
sneering at customers who didn't go on a long enough journey. You'd book a
Minicab and be told they're '2 minutes away' and still find yourself waiting
after 30 minutes.

Co-operatives can be trusted to look after their own interests - to an extent
that might even pass the definition of racketeering. They can't be relied upon
to make a compelling proposition to customers.

Not saying private companies like uber are the answer either, but it's hard to
judge which is worse.

------
joshuaellinger
Check out ATX-Coop. [http://www.atxcooptaxi.net/](http://www.atxcooptaxi.net/)

Owned by the drivers. Has about 1/2 the traditional taxi drivers in Austin
after launching which Uber/Lyft left.

They were trying to get an app built but without the deep pockets of the VCs
they appear to have abandoned it. You call them and they dispatch. I miss the
payment side more than the ordering side but I only use them to go to the
airport of it isn't really the core case where Uber/Lyft excels.

There is a sense of pride and ownership among the drivers. Feels better than
both Uber/Lyft and other taxi companies. Doesn't have that desperate feel
about it.

Co-Ops do work. They have a different set of owners and thus a different set
of incentives.

------
ada1981
I'm curious if the riders would also be able to be owners.

I co-own a cooperative grocery store with about 17,000 others; we do about
$50MM in revenue annually. We are all owners / workers / shoppers.

------
yomritoyj
A responsible politician should say why he thinks cooperatives have not been
successful in the past, why driver owned cab aggregators are rate, and how he
thinks those problems can be corrected. Just asking people to imagine stuff is
lazy.

~~~
owebmaster
A responsible successful politician pushes discussions and arguments and
people's imagination is the best tool available other than manipulation and
dictatorship (directly or indirectly via media and technology).

------
watwut
They would not be able to subsidize rides nor run loses that long.

That being said, there is zero guarantee collective ownership would lead to
better behaved company. Collective ownership can be quite ugly.

------
pdog
The collectivist dream: outsource innovation to a system that rewards owners
with profits, then pretend like someone would invent the next Uber even if
there's no incentive.

~~~
cardamomo
I think you're thinking narrowly about the term "incentive." Incentives can be
non-monetary as well. Consider the opportunity to work with increased
autonomy, or a chance to move your industry -- and perhaps society at large --
away from hierarchical power structures that disadvantage and disenfranchise
workers. Focusing solely on the monetary side of this disregards the many
other ways in which people find meaning in their lives.

------
amelius
Imagine an Amazon run co-operatively by small shop owners.

------
dogma1138
So TaxiLdn or GettTaxi?

Imagine a Black Cab driver willing to drive further than an imaginary 1.5 mile
radius around Paddington*

*Airports and Cannary Wharf excluded.

~~~
tluyben2
You are downvoted but that is a big issue. And Uber drivers try it too by
calling you to ask where you want to go. Which they are not supposed to and I
never answer. It is hard to get rides off the beaten path sometimes.

~~~
dogma1138
I never had much problem getting an Uber for even 30-45min drives I don’t like
Uber that much mostly because in the center I’ve pretty strange experiences
with them but gettng a ride to Watford or even St Albans wasn’t a problem sure
it costs 30-40£ but it’s still much cheaper than prebooked not to mention
black cabs.

------
melloclello
Imagine if we nationalised Uber.

~~~
AsyncAwait
Not every 'socialist' proposal has to mean 'big, bad government', as some
political circles like to portray it. Look at the success of free/open-source
software. It didn't involve any nationalisation, government protection etc.
No, it beat the competition in the free market, many times even in a market
that wasn't really 'free' because of vendor lock-in, lobbying etc. I don't see
why this could not work elsewhere as well.

~~~
cturner
Free software does not extend from socialist thought.

Stallman's initial realisation was a reaction to crony capitalism: he could
not modify the printer due to IP rules. Essentially, a deal is done between
government and big business (the manufacturer and possibly the university), at
the expense of hackers (individuals).

The justifications for copyright are rooted in common-good arguments. The
state limits individual freedom, claiming that it should because of
(undemonstrated) common-good advantages. Hayek explores this, and takes a
position against IP in _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_.

A better political analogy for free software is a conflict from early US
history: between landowner and state rights advocates (Jefferson) vs big-
business visions (Hamilton).

------
tyingq
I'm imagining it wouldn't be so popular sans the VC subsidies.

------
ape4
I always felt Uber takes a cut thats way too large. They don't own the car or
drive.

~~~
tyingq
They just reported a second quarter 2017 loss of $645 million.

------
dhoulb
... sounds expensive

