[leereeves]

Under the theory that Uber/Lyft employees are contractors and allowed to set prices, wouldn't coordinating ("conspiring") to do so en masse be considered price fixing?

Personally I think they should be considered employees, but a pro-management federal prosecutor could make some trouble for them.

[radcon]

On that note, does it make a difference that they're collectively refusing work rather than collectively setting prices? Uber and Lyft are still the ones actually setting the price.

In the end I don't think it will matter, Uber and Lyft could probably code around this pretty easily if it started to affect their bottom line. When they see 100+ drivers in the same place go offline within X seconds of each other, it's a pretty clear indication that there's coordinated action taking place. They probably have enough data from drivers' phones to see that they're sitting still waiting to go back online.

I just hope they don't decide to make an example out of these drivers by banning them...

[snowwrestler]

While both companies provided consumer-friendly press statements, I would not assume that Lyft or Uber actually cares if this is happening. After all, they also make more money per ride under the scheme. As long as there are enough customers willing to pay the extra cost during surge pricing, drivers and Uber/Lyft would both win.

Speaking of price-fixing.. Competition is what usually keeps prices low in ride-sharing; if Lyft is too expensive, more people will use Uber. But if the drivers of both apps all trigger surge pricing together (in both platforms simultaneously) then it is possible that both platforms will make more money until the fake surge ends.

[lazerpants]

Seems like they could just force a delay of [x] time between individual driver logins. Call it a server side issue or something and make it so each driver can only re-login once every 15 minutes. Then by the time the surge worked the drivers instigating it would be locked out of participating.

[xyzzyz]

Refusing to sell a product or a service below a specific price is literally what setting prices is.

[toomuchtodo]

Sounds like forced labor to me.

[eropple]

That's an interesting question. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested in the answer. From a technical perspective it seems that they'd need significantly more control over product liquidity generally, rather than locally, for it to apply; from a moral perspective it doesn't seem like a reasonable appellation at all and that the closest equivalent is labor organization--and it's worth noting that companies are not obligated to negotiate with labor organizations on behalf of contractors in the same way they are employees, but contractors are allowed to organize. Contractor labor, such as SAG, IATSE, etc. do it regularly.

Practically, the impact of a hundred airport drivers deciding to "strike" is so small that a non-mendacious prosecutor probably wouldn't even look at it. But there's a lot of mendacity around Washington, so who knows.

[rayiner]

Note that unions are specifically exempt from antitrust laws. So just because some conduct would be legal if a union did it doesn’t mean it’s legal without an actual union in place.

[Tade0]

At least in Uber's case this seems to have been an emergent thing originally, as in: drivers independently of each other found under which conditions the prices were surging and acted appropriately.

[rayiner]

I think you can make an argument that it’s bid rigging. Uber/Lyft pricing can be viewed as an auction where the surge price is the market clearing price. Conspiring with others to not accept bids below a floor could probably be prosecuted as a bid rigging conspiracy.

[jdmichal]

I don't see how it could be bid rigging, when the drivers are not even able to bid. Short of what the article discusses, they must take whatever Uber / Lyft give them. If anything, this seems more akin to actual negotiation / refusal to work at the proposed price. Which, if they are contractors, is perfectly acceptable, no?

[lisper]

> they must take whatever Uber / Lyft give them

No, they don't. No one is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work. Uber/Lyft's offer is take-it-or-leave-it, but leaving it is always an option.

[perennate]

That leaving is an option is what the parent comment is saying ("refusal to work at the proposed price"). The drivers in the article are refusing to drive at the non-surge price, and when the price surges, they find the price acceptable and so take the rides.

The part of parent comment that you quoted is just about how the take-it-or-leave-it nature leaves no middle ground (bidding).

[lisper]

But that is false. Acceptance or refusal of an offer is bidding. It's essentially an auction: Lyft/Uber asks, "Does anyone want to sell at $X? No? OK, how about $X+1?" etc.

What the drivers are doing is not bidding, it is colluding to hide the true market price, i.e. what the lowest bidder would actually be willing to accept. That is illegal.

Please note that my sympathies are very much with the drivers. Their situation sucks and needs to be improved. But breaking the law is not the way to improve it.

[dullgiulio]

I wonder why the opposite is legal. If users are willing to pay more, Uber/Lyft will not automatically offer more to the drivers. Seems like the free-market works only when it is in favour of the company arbitraging.

[chipperyman573]

>But breaking the law is not the way to improve it.

Breaking the law is exactly what Uber and Lyft did and now that they're on the other side they're whining about it.

[EGreg]

You are implying that some drivers arr willing to accept it, but are not accepting it.

Aren’t you begging the question? How do you know this is the case?

[jakelazaroff]

> What the drivers are doing is not bidding, it is colluding to hide the true market price, i.e. what the lowest bidder would actually be willing to accept. That is illegal.

Is that what's happening? The drivers have no ability to coerce other drivers. It seems to me that if there were a driver willing to accept a lower price, they would do so. But not enough drivers are willing, so Uber/Lyft is forced to increase its offer.

[codedokode]

I don't think they are allowed to set prices. Furthermore, they are probably somehow punished if they don't accept the orders that app offers.

[thebradbain]

Uber and Lyft don’t let their drivers set rates, but the argument (and law) is that they should — since Uber won a judgement saying their drivers were contractors, not employees, their drivers, then, are legally entitled the right to charging their own rate. For a lot of intents and purposes Uber/Lyft wanted drivers to be classified as contractors so they wouldn’t be subject to laws re: minimum wage for employees, but it seems also don’t want to be subject to all laws re: contracting (price negotiation).

Barring some extreme measure of lobbying for and passing a law that carves out an entirely new employment classification for the gig economy, Uber/Lyft/etc have to comply with at least one of the existing classifications.

[dnautics]

Have you ever done contract coding? You don't always get to set the rates, because the rate for the contract is posted, and the other side is not going to negotiate.

[richardknop]

Contractor here. Well you are not obligated to accept the contract if the rate is too low. These Lyft / Uber drivers do the same thing, the rate offered by Lyft/Uber for a ride is too low so they decline and only accept if they get their preferred rate. The same as software engineer contractor does, I don't accept every contract opportunity when I am in between contracts.

[Jasper_]

In Uber Pool / Lyft Line, drivers are not allowed to refuse extra riders. If they accept one of these jobs they are locked in to whatever jobs Uber/Lyft throws at them afterwards unless they want to end their shift.

[thebradbain]

Except if you decline too many within a short time period Uber punishes you, I believe.

[richardknop]

That's why they log out of the app / turn off their phones instead of canceling rides. So they are just not available in the driver supply and then when they log back in they get surge price.

[drawnwren]

It seems to me that Uber's counter argument would be that they aren't obligated to offer a contract to all contractors equally. They would further argue that Uber's product is availability of drivers vs the rides themselves (remember they are only the middle men) and that they provide preference (in a binary manner) to contractors who allow them to provide consistent availability.

[robmaister]

The thing about contracting is you don't have to take the job if they aren't willing to negotiate. If no one wants to build your website for $5, then the client is either going to have to pay more, or not make a website.

All of the drivers around that airport incur roughly the same costs for gas, wear and tear, rent, etc. So while you might find someone halfway across the world to build your website for $5, you won't be able to do the same for your driver between the airport and your hotel.

[ummonk]

Drivers are free to stop accepting rides whenever they want.

[crooked-v]

That's exactly what they did: stop accepting rides, then start accepting them again once Lyft offered to pay them enough that they thought it was worth it.

[mcguire]

Which they're doing. En-masse. Until the fares go up.

[thebradbain]

I think in that case though it’s fine (even expected) because I can choose to take or not take it and find work elsewhere as a freelancer — the pro-labor argument with Uber/Lyft is that it’s systemic versus freelance work between two individuals is personal.

[dnautics]

having been an uber/lyft driver professionally for a year and half, I could definitely choose to take or not take it a find work elsewhere. Yes there were incentives to not reject too many, but that's true of general contracting work, too.

[gsnedders]

They aren't, and the furthermore is also true beyond a certain percentage. This is part of the reason why in a number of jurisdictions the courts have ruled that the drivers aren't independent contractors.

[i_am_proteus]

Is it considered price-fixing if a union that works mostly contracts (e.g. electricians) sets a labor price? This seems to be a standard practice.

[dpflan]

This is an interesting dynamic - the colluding drivers wait for Lyft/Uber to determine the surge pricing and the point-person for the drivers informs of the price increase to a target that is acceptable. Now how does the pricing affect the demand for the rides? Will a Lyft user switch to Uber if the collusion is affecting only 1 application (vice versa too)?

[chrischen]

A union is basically collusion/price fixing.

[return1]

Assuming that it is, can they do something about it ?

[Jommi]

Why do you think they should be employees?

[askafriend]

Taxi Cab Drivers were not employees either.

Why do Uber and Lyft need to take on the drivers as employees all of a sudden? I'm not saying they shouldn't be, but just curious why the seemingly sudden change in opinion from some people?