Douglas MacMillan

You are currently browsing articles tagged Douglas MacMillan.

There’s a legal push to make Uber drivers full employees of the company, but what does it say if its workers can’t afford to be full-time employees? Some Libertarians may think Americans choose piece work because it’s so great and flexible, but in many instances it’s the former middle class just grasping at straws. And that straw will get thinner and thinner until eventually it disappears.

From Douglas MacMillan at WSJ:

Flexibility is the new cherished buzzword to dozens of startups rushing to defend the legality of their employment models. Companies from Uber to Lyft to Postmates say they are pioneering a new gig economy where workers are free to clock in and out as easily as they open a smartphone app, helping many of them make time to care for a family or pursue an education or career.

But that flexibility comes at a cost to these workers, some of whom are unhappy with paying for their own health insurance and costs such as car maintenance and fuel. Last month, Uber was ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a former San Francisco driver for Uber, more than $4,100 to cover the costs of vehicle mileage and tolls, after she argued successfully the company was so deeply involved in every aspect of her job that it was legally acting as an employer. …

But some of those drivers may just dislike the idea of working full time for Uber. Javier Calix, a driver in San Francisco, said in an interview that he would not take a full-time job offered by Uber because the company doesn’t pay him enough for that to make economic sense. While he said he used to make around $25 an hour, after gas and other expenses, when he first started driving for the service two years ago, that’s now down to about $15 an hour after all the fees Uber takes out of his pay.

“I wouldn’t be able to afford it,” Calix said of the prospect of full-time Uber employment.

 

Tags: ,

The Peer Economy may be a good idea whose time has come, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for workers. In America, it’s a crumb tossed to those squeezed from the middle class by globalization, automation, etc. Keeping employees happy isn’t a goal of Uber and others because it treats labor like a dance marathon, the music never stopping, new “employee-partners” continually being supplied by a whirl of desperation. From Douglas MacMillan at the WSJ:

The sheer numbers of Uber’s labor pool and rate of growth are hard to fathom. The company added 40,000 new drivers in the U.S. in the month of December alone. The authors of the paper say the number of new drivers is doubling every six months. At the same time, Uber says nearly half its drivers become inactive after a year – either because they quit or are terminated.

If those trends continue, Uber could end this year with roughly half-a-million drivers in the U.S. alone.

That growth is being driven mainly by UberX, the company’s service for non-professional drivers that first rolled out in 2012. UberX has create a new part-time job opportunity for people who have never driven professionally, which account for 64% of Uber’s total number of drivers.

Most, or 62% of Uber drivers, have at least one additional source of income. Which could mean that at least for some, Uber is not economically feasible as a full-time job.

Uber claims an average driver makes $19.04 an hour, after paying Uber a commission, higher than the $12.90 average hourly wage (including tips, Uber says) that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates for taxis and chauffeurs. Uber drivers make the most average pay in New York, followed by San Francisco and Boston.

The average pay for former taxi drivers on Uber is $23 per hour; for former black car drivers it’s $27 per hour.

But the paper’s authors admit these figures don’t include expenses that come out drivers own pockets, including gas, maintenance and insurance. And a number of people with experience driving for the company say Uber has made it more difficult to make a good wage because it frequently cuts prices as a way to entice new passengers.

A drop in prices can have a profound effect on driver pay.•

Tags:

The Sharing Economy is still a very small portion of the GDP, but it will likely grow, whether or not Uber, one of its biggest current stars, exists or not. Credit Peter Thiel with saying early and loudly that the dominant rideshare company might Napster itself out of existence, so flagrant it is in flouting laws and even common sense. Travis Kalanick’s outfit might survive these early bumps, but they’re getting to be frequent and embarrassing. None of these dubious methods are new to Silicon Valley, of course, Microsoft itself having been just as aggressive in its heyday. Of course, that company was already a giant when its behavior came to light, and it was ultimately punished by the government for its actions. Uber is in a much more vulnerable position. From Scott Austin and Douglas MacMillan at WSJ:

“In his bid to upend the taxicab industry, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has simultaneously declared war on taxi drivers, governments around the world and smaller rivals like Lyft.

But on its war path to a $30 billion valuation, Uber continues to battle itself with questionable comments and tactics that are in danger of harming the company’s reputation and becoming a liability.

The latest controversy came Monday night when Buzzfeed reported that an Uber executive suggested the company should invest $1 million in an opposition research team to dig up dirt on media critics’ personal lives and families. The comments from Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice president of business, were made at a dinner in New York that included Kalanick, celebrities and some journalists.

Michael was directing his words in particular at PandoDaily editor Sarah Lacy, who he believes has written harsh words about Uber including accusing the company of ‘sexism and misogyny.’ As Buzzfeed reported:

At the dinner, Michael expressed outrage at Lacy’s column and said that women are far more likely to get assaulted by taxi drivers than Uber drivers. He said that he thought Lacy should be held ‘personally responsible’ for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted.

Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.”

Tags: , , , ,