[tptacek]

This is not really how a lot of cab companies work. Drivers can end up leasing cars or medallions from cab companies too. Cab drivers get screwed by cab companies, which are, contrary to the narrative that needs a counterbalance to Uber as the "bad guy", not corporate model citizens.

[wpietri]

I'd be interested to see some data on this, but every single cab driver I've talked to in San Francisco was on the per-shift model. And when I lived in Chicago, same deal there. That'd be dozens in each place.

I also agree that cab companies are kinda terrible, but that doesn't make Uber any less terrible. If anything, I think it's a sign to us that we should be especially careful with Uber: if a few local companies competing can end up all being pretty bad, one nationwide monopoly run by ugly people can only be worse.

[tptacek]

The cab drivers in SF always complained to me about their relationship to the dispatcher, but I'm not sure I ever grokked that.

Chicago cabs, I get an earful on leases and minimum number of hours they have to work to pay for their cab/medallion.

You can be on a shift AND in hock to the cab company; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

To me it seems like at least with Uber you can set your hours, and there's transparency regarding your capital costs: you buy/lease the car yourself, so no medallion or other lease shenanigans.

I'm not in love with Uber, by the way: I think Uber should have to comply with a lot of taxi regulation that they don't currently comply with.

[wpietri]

It has been 15 years since I've lived in Chicago, so it must have changed. At the time from the cab companies I heard about per-shift leases and drivers were very focused on making the nut, that being the amount to pay for the car's use that (12-hour) shift. But I could see why cab companies would force a shift to longer commitments, as the drivers were pretty strategic about only picking up shifts where they were sure to make money. Great for drivers, but that could leave a lot of cabs sitting idle. And now that you mention it, I recall a few drivers who owned their own cab/medallion, and would time-share it with a couple of driver buddies; they were much more focused on maximizing road time. So I think I was too hasty above.

In SF I've certainly never heard a driver complain about a contract with the cab company or minimum hours, and given the number of complaints they have when you get them rolling, I figure I would have heard. But I'll ask next I get the chance. And the complaints about dispatchers have gone down dramatically now that cabbies have other ways of getting passengers. Flywheel in particular is a big winner for everybody, and I wish some taxi commission had been forward-thinking enough to force a whole city into a universal dispatch with a clean API.

[pvg]

In SF every driver, except for the tiny minority who own a medallion pays the gate fee. Since the medallion licenses a cab to operate 24/7, medallion holders also lease out their medallions if and when they don't use them personally.

The MTA sets the meter rate, the gate fee and both the number and sale/resale price of medallions. It seems it almost doesn't matter how evil or virtuous cab companies are since the system doesn't appear to have much flexibility, room for competition or self-correction.