[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.