Hacker News Reader

> Who would bear the risk? Who would bear the losses? Also, what would happen to bad drivers on the system, would they get fired like Uber fires them?

You're talking as if this were some bizarre new thought-experiment that no-one's properly thought through. Co-operative supermarkets exist. Co-operative department stores exist. Bad employees at Waitrose can get fired like at any other supermarket (though obviously they're generally better treated than at privately-owned ones).

You seem to be imagining a cooperative as a collection of free agents who have complete autonomy and can never be fired. That model probably exists, but that's not what people typically mean when they talk about cooperatives, especially in the context of the UK, as the politician in the OP is.

What they mean is a structure like the John Lewis Partnership (which has been around since 1929), wholly owned by a trust whose employees are its beneficiaries. Which means any profits are distributed among its employees, who also get a say in the running of the business. But it's still a limited company, so it's still run by its executive team (albeit one which is ultimately accountable to the employees), and risk, losses etc. all work as normal for a limited company.

Is it better? It occurs to me that one of the reasons that cab drivers are relatively rude is because they’re insulated from grinding feedback. Uber drivers, in contrast, are terrified of reprisal from Uber. They’re paid like independent contractors, but under the microscope and can be “fired” like employees.

Is that really the desired end game? Everyone being micro-optimied under threats of losing their jobs, like Wal-Mart and Amazon employees?

Why shouldn't consistently rude drivers be sacked? Putting employment above customer service is putting the cart before the horse and is a lousy business model. Businesses that go bust don't employ anyone.

>Who would bear the risk? Who would bear the losses?

The collective, which will be set up as a coop, and have assets, etc?

>Also, what would happen to bad drivers on the system, would they get fired like Uber fires them? What if a ride is in a spot they don’t want to go to, what happens if they don’t go? What happens when a driver takes a bad route for extra fare? What happens if they get told their car smells bad or is unsafe or they’re driving aggressively or are using the phone to talk to some random person during the trip?

All those things happen under Uber as well. Also, by which mechanism would those be more difficult to handle in co-op? It's not like co-ops don't have rules.

>The first time I got in an Uber the driver gave me candy and a bottle of water, charged my phone. Will the taxi co op do that?

If they want to superficially charm the customer, I don't see why not.

>Does anyone seriously think a co-operative Uber would be able to compete with Uber without making Uber illegal?

Sure -- there are some huge co-ops out there competing just fine with traditional businesses.

(Though Uber should be made illegal anyway).

Co-ops can compete with corporations without any special legislation. In some European countries, large industries are dominated by co-ops. (Finland’s biggest bank and retail chain are both co-ops, and they gained their market position fairly recently.)

Successful large co-ops often allow customers to become members. When done right, it’s like a bonus system on steroids. There’s no reason why this would not work for an Uber competitor. As a rider, I would feel comfortable in a system where both I and the driver are owners of a co-op.

Uber already is illegal in most places it operates, so... yes?