Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Friday, April 22, 2016

The Legal Problem That Could Crash Uber

WASHINGTON — Ride-sharing titan Uber — which is valued at about $68 billion — makes a lot of its money by skirting labor laws. And one of its top lobbying allies in the nation’s capital may have just undermined its profits.

Uber keeps its costs low by refusing to treat its drivers as employees. Under American labor law, employees are entitled to a minimum wage, overtime pay and have their expenses reimbursed. They can receive unemployment benefits if they get laid off, and have the right to unionize if they want to bargain collectively for better contract terms. The company’s drivers aren’t eligible for any of this, however, because the company maintains that its drivers are independent contractors — automotive entrepreneurs running their own businesses who have decided to link their operations with Uber.

Spencer Meyer, a labor lawyer from Portland, Maine, has brought a new lawsuit that could create a lot of trouble for Uber based on this distinction. Because if Uber’s drivers are really independent contractors like the company claims, it could be breaking a whole different set of laws: The antitrust statutes that protect consumers from corporate collusion.

“Uber has a simple but illegal business plan: to fix prices among competitors and take a cut of the profits,” the complaint reads.

If all of the company’s drivers really are independent contractors, then they aren’t allowed to secretly conspire over what to charge their customers, the lawsuit reasons. That would be price fixing, a basic antitrust law violation. Since its technology allows all of these independent contractors to set identical prices, Uber is a price fixing scheme that has to shut down and pay its customers for overcharging them, according to the suit.

Its “surge pricing” elevates the cost of a ride according to the demand for drivers. Drivers can’t opt in or out of a price surge and they don’t bid with each other for the cost of a ride. The amount is locked into the app. If a lot of people are looking to catch an Uber, the price “surges” upward. If not, it drifts back down. The price rises or falls until supply matches demand, according to Uber’s secret algorithm.

“It’s classic econ 101,” Uber CEO Travis Kalanick is fond of saying. He is worth over $6 billion, according to Forbes.

Unfortunately for Kalanick, there are econ 201, 301 and 401 classes. And any economics student can study anti-competitive behavior.

“If Uber were to become a transportation company and employ drivers, it would be free to compete with other companies using its pricing algorithm,” the complaint reads. “But Uber has refused to become a transportation company. Consequently, drivers using the app are independent firms, competing with each other for riders. They should compete on price … Instead, they have agreed to Kalanick’s scheme to fix prices among direct competitors using Uber’s pricing algorithm. Uber’s price fixing is classic anticompetitive behavior.”

Switching to an employee-driver model would, of course, be costly for the ride-sharing behemoth. Uber faces a separate class-action lawsuit arguing that its drivers are owed expenses for the mileage logged on their cars, and tips. It had previously attempted to bar drivers from being able to sue the company collectively, and put new wording into its driver contracts in December in another attempt to curb future drivers from taking action. Lyft, a similar, ride-sharing company, has been sued for $126 million over pay its drivers would have received had they been classified as employees.

Federal Judge Jed Rakoff, of the Southern District of New York, rejected Uber’s motion to dismiss the antitrust case this month, setting a trial date for November. Rakoff was a tough draw for Uber — a few years ago he garnered national attention when he rejected government settlements with big banks on the grounds that they were too lenient.

Uber spokesman Matt Kallman told The Huffington Post that the company disagreed with the decision to let the case proceed.

“These claims are unwarranted and have no basis in fact,” he said in a written statement emailed to HuffPost. “In just five years since its founding, Uber has increased competition, lowered prices, and improved service.”

And the top corporate lobbying coalition is undermining Uber’s argument. In December, Seattle passed an ordinance giving Uber and Lyft drivers the right to unionize. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s preeminent big-business lobby, intervened on behalf of Uber, saying that independent contractors don’t have the right to unionize. Although employees of a company are guaranteed this right, the Chamber argued, allowing independent contractors to unionize would constitute illegal price fixing.

“It’s antitrust 101 that independent actors cannot conspire with each other to set prices,” The Chamber’s chief legal officer, Lily Fu Claffee, said in a January press release.

Sounds familiar.

Original Article
Author: Zach Carter

No comments:

Post a Comment