The main differnce is that the handymem can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice. They can't do a counter-offer neither.
Technically, as you said, they can refuse. In practice, the power that Uber has on his drivers limits those choices a lot.
> The main difference is that the handymen can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice.
I'm not sure what the situation is like in France, but most Uber drivers I've seen have the Lyft app open at the same time. It seems pretty trivial to download another app and use both at the same time (easier than almost any other freelancer finding more sources for work).
Part of the justification of the high court is that Uber disables accounts of drivers who refuses courses.
Uber also hides the destination.
There's not much room for a choice.
I do not know france, but for example in India smart drivers who do that all time, use uber as lead gen tool for regular recurring customers like office going employees, senior citizens with regular hospital visits and build relationships offline and network just like any good freelancer.
But it's different than literally every other employment opportunity right? No one flips burgers at McDonalds and runs across the street to make a taco at Taco Bell and then runs back to do more burgers at McDonalds all in the same hour/shift.
The inability to negotiate is the key point. On the point about choice, there are areas where drivers can drive for Uber or Lyft though so some drivers do have choice.
Just because the process is automated doesn't mean that no negotiation is taking place. Uber drivers negotiate all the time, every time they shut down the app due to rates being too low at the moment they negotiate. So Uber is forced to set rates at levels where they have enough drivers and enough passengers. It isn't like a job where if you just stop working they will fire you, you can drop in and out of uber whenever and however you want as long as it isn't in the middle of a ride.
I mean, imagine if a McDonalds worker could just say "I don't feel like working for $10 right now, I'm going home!", and then just leave in the middle of a shift. Then the next day he sees that Burger king pays more, so he goes and work for them that day for a couple of hours, after which McDonalds increased their rates so he goes back there and work a few hours. Sounds like insanity to you? Well yeah, because it is insanity if employees could act like that!
Uber drivers are not employees, end of story. Uber doesn't have any power over them as is, normal workers have a contract which is worth a lot to them, you have no such contract with Uber as it is trivial to get the permit to drive for Uber, Uber drivers are not afraid of Uber suddenly firing them, they can go in and out of their role how much they want.
Thank you. You seem to get the itch nearly completely. However you are missing one thing where Uber and Lyft have gone overnoard to the greedy side:
At least in California, driver pay, and what the customer paid are decoupled. There is no more "surge" per say, it's just a dynamic price for the user, which might be completely different than the one the driver has.
They started out with that, but I can't think of any other reason they changed it to the current model, except greed. And AFAIK this is only how it is in some US cities, like cities in California.
In Europe they still operate at a standard of 25% cut.
The inability to negotiate is the key point. On the point about choice, there are areas where drivers can drive for Uber or Lyft though so some drivers do have choice.
Where I drove for Uber, there were five platforms. But Uber had 90%+ of the rides. In a year, I think I got one Lyft request, and nothing from any of the others.
If there were plenty of customers on all platforms your statement might be valid, but that's not the reality.
What? There is literally no cost. You download the competitors app, and youre good to go.
Prices for the ride are always changing. Uber usually has lower per mile cost, while Lyft has a bit lower minute cost. This does not affect switching costs.
If you only have a few hours to work here and there I would say having the choice to go drive for a service is a good thing, not a "frying pan". Would you prefer to take away that option for these people? I don't see your point.
My point is that the choice between driving for Uber or driving for Lyft isn't really a choice because other than the company paying you there isn't actually any meaningful difference. It's a reply to the parent's point and says nothing about taking anyone's options away.
I think choosing one gig over another is a form of negotiation. The driver thinks about what will pay more: Delivering an Amazon Prime package, driving for Uber, delivering a meal via Postmates, etc. So by choosing the one that pays best you're rejecting the others. So they have an incentive to pay more and get you to work their gig.
