If they want to alienate drivers less, why don't they just issue new rules stating that drivers must accept X% of rides in order to stay on the platform? I thought they already had such a thing in place, anyway.
I feel like the answer is obvious? Uber should create a new full time driver position which pays a fixed hourly rate.<p>So there would now be two classes of drivers. Those fully employed by Uber, with all the benefits normal full time work in the US entails (i.e. health insurance) and the downside being, their income is capped. The other class would be those who drive on their own schedule like it is now, with the main benefit being their income is potentially uncapped. Uber's actually in a pretty advantageous position to hire for the new position since they have data on the best drivers.<p>I am sure I am missing a lot here tho, like what prevents Uber from giving the most profitable rides to itself? Or how do they avoid churn in the full time work force?
Of note, this is specifically about California (in light of Prop 22 having passed in november)<p>This one is a tough one. On the one hand, one is inclined to sympathize with drivers wanting more money since they already have to put up with so much crap as unskilled workers in an industry that was ravaged by covid. But on the other, their collective behavior significantly hurts the platform that they depend on.<p>It seems like a tragedy of the commons situation: individual drivers want to cherrypick the most profitable rides, but if this happens to a significant enough degree, the reliability of the service as a whole gets impacted, which paradoxically leads to less customers in the long run...