Uber: EU rules will see us pull out of “hundreds” of European cities — Brussels’ proposal to classify gig workers as de facto employees could slam the breaks on operations across the bloc::An Uber boss has issued a stark warning that Brussels’ proposal to classify gig workers as de facto employees could slam the breaks on operations across the bloc.

    • zoe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      luckely everyone has become wary of what these tech bros startups are all about. Tech companies like this just add extra steps to a preexisting business and pride themselves of being innovative

      • @Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1010 months ago

        But but but, there’s an app, surely that’s worth all the downsides right.

    • @Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      610 months ago

      Don’t forget consumer protections!

      Uber somehow managed to convince people that it’s not their fault if their drivers don’t follow traffic laws, drive intoxicated, and assault people.

  • @HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10810 months ago

    If you can’t pay your workers ethically then your business doesn’t deserve to exist. Simple as that.

    • Christer Enfors
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2110 months ago

      Yes. These people are not entitled to be business owners. If they can’t hack it, then get out of the way for the people that can. But don’t worry, business owners - I’m sure you’d be perfectly happy being a gig worker for another company instead, right?

  • @rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8010 months ago

    If your business model requires the economic exploitation of your workers, your company possesses no legitimate reason to exist.

    • @TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2110 months ago

      Similar to what I always say: if your company’s survival relies on tax evasion, you shouldn’t have a company.

    • @LordPassionFruit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1410 months ago

      This might not be universal, but here it doesn’t even require it.

      Back in 2017, Uber tried to expand to my home province and tried to get us to change our local regulations regarding rideshare (it boiled down to Uber being required to call its drivers employees and to function like the pre-existing taxi services).

      Local government doesn’t budge, so Uber decides that it doesn’t want to come anymore. Within the year, a local alternative pops up that complies with the regulations Uber tried to fight, and they’re still profitable 6 years later.

      It’s not that Uber isn’t capable of paying their employees living wages, it’s that they can earn more money if they don’t.

  • VinceUnderReview
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6510 months ago

    "Since 2021 in the UK, Uber drivers are considered ‘workers’, which is not full employee status but does mean they receive sick pay and annual leave.

    The firm has gone further than UK competitors including Ola and Bolt in worker benefits.

    The number of drivers on the UK platform has doubled in recent years."

    Go fuck yourself uber.

    • @Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1110 months ago

      Having just returned from Australia on vacation, I’ll say it was extremely inconvenient when Uber wasn’t in a region. We even managed to get stuck in a small airport because there were no regular taxis, and the local Taxi app simply didn’t work for the required 2fa with a foreign phone number (though the UI for selecting country was there, no text was ever received).

      Uber is great when available while traveling. Makes life so much easier.

      That said, I fully support regulating them to have to support their drivers as any other employer. Fuck them and their repeated threats to their ball and go home. Force them out of every market until they concede and restructure.

      • @Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        610 months ago

        Um, you do realise that the only reason you couldn’t get a normal taxi was because Uber’s business model was to destroy the industry and take over?

        • @Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          510 months ago

          … yes, they destroyed the taxi industry in a remote airport where they never rolled out service to. Right.

          • @Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Oh boy 😂

            Edit - I should explain

            Uber never rolled out service to the airport because it wasn’t profitable enough, that would be the only reason

            The few remaining taxi drivers still in work after Uber destroyed their industry won’t go to the airport, for the same reason Uber didn’t. But now the taxi drivers are even less likely to go there as they’re forced to go where the money is, wherever that may be

            Let’s face it, if you ever used Uber to save yourself a few dollars, it was at Uber’s expense; they made a loss on it

            Now the taxi drivers have gone, they have a monopoly and have quadrupled their prices

            As they say, there’s never one flake of snow that thinks it was responsible for an avalanche

            • @Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              Your point was obvious. It’s still awful and makes bad assumptions on taxi availability and demand in an a rural area. Your entire argument seems to be based on city economics of supply and demand at scale.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3410 months ago

    So people will go back to fairly-paid taxi drivers. Not seeing a problem here.