What If the "Sharing Economy" Organized a Strike, and Nobody Came? 139
Nerval's Lobster writes "In Boston, a number of UberX drivers reportedly planned to strike yesterday afternoon in response to a rate cut. (UberX is a low-cost program from Uber, which is attempting to "disrupt" the traditional cab industry via a mobile app that connects ordinary drivers in need of cash with passengers who want to go somewhere.) Uber tried to preempt the strike with a blog posting explaining that the rate cut actually translated into more customers and thus more revenue to drivers, but it needn't have bothered: according to local media (the same media that reported a strike was in the making) a strike failed to materialize. Many of the biggest firms of the so-called 'sharing economy,' such as Uber and Airbnb, are locked in battle with some combination of deeply entrenched industries and government regulators. But if the 'labor' that drives the sharing economy becomes more agitated about its compensation, it could create yet another interesting wrinkle. The Boston strike may have fizzled, but that doesn't mean another one, in a different city, won't enjoy more success." Free (or freer) entry makes occupation-based roadblocks harder to enforce, though, so Uber and other crowd-sourcing matchmakers are tougher to pin down and disrupt in the way that more tightly controlled enterprises are. (Not that city councils and other bodies aren't trying to corral crowd-sourced undertakings into their regulatory purviews, putting a damper on some of that freewheeling disintermediation.)
Re:What "sharing economy"? (Score:2, Interesting)
They talk about driver earnings per hour, yet want to be treated like some college buddies carpooling home for thanksgiving break
They recruit "customers" by pretending to be a ride board. They recruit "drivers" by pretending to be a cab company. Many businesses recruit customers by pretending to be their friend, to want a special relationship with the individual customer, so there's nothing specially surprising about that.
Their relationship to their drivers is much more interesting. They're not trying to recruit full-time drivers, but just people looking to make some extra money in their spare time, which is a very different relationship than a taxi company has with its employees. The rate cut is a nice demonstration of that - Uber's found that they have more people signing up to drive than they have passengers to drive for, and they're testing how low they can go before they start losing fares. My guess is: pretty damn low. People working "in their spare time," will often do so for less than minimum wage, especially if they have the impression that they're working for themselves. Drive around town, meet interesting people, and have them pay gas money? Sure! This is the reason the "strike" and likely any future attempts will fail. There's always going to be someone willing to do the job for a little less money under slightly worse conditions, and if the barriers to entry are low, then there's nothing to keep them from moving in.