Skip to main content

Catalyzing worker co-ops & the solidarity economy

Why We Don't Need a Cooperative Uber

Article type
Repost
January 27, 2020
Authors
Body paragraph

cross-posted from The Worker's Paradise

[Editor's note: for further information about the "ridesharing" business model of Uber and Lyft (or rather, the lack of one) interested readers are encouraged to peruse Hubert Horan's series of articles entitled "Can Uber Ever Deliver?" on the finance-focused blog Naked Capitalism.]

I often see posts and efforts regarding platform co-ops that want to co-operatize the “gig” economy. I understand the desire. The co-op community missed this change in our society in a big way. It happened very quickly and utilized an industry whose culture tends not to support collective action (either through labor unions or cooperatives). One of the regularly recurring concepts is to replace Lyft or Uber with a co-op version. I try to be an optimist, but not only don’t I think that it is possible, I think that the co-op community should be thinking about how to reinvent the use to technology in line with the cooperative identity.

Uber and Lyft are not new to the taxicab industry in terms of their model. The only difference between these companies and the traditional taxicab companies, is that they were able to operate in multiple cities and afford political influence at a level that most taxicab company owners could only dream about. The manner in which Uber and Lyft treats the drivers and passengers is part and parcel of the industry that it pretends to replace. It is predatory and extractive.

The primary reason that I don’t think that a co-op version of Uber/Lyft is possible comes from a simple aspect of their plan. These apps are available to provide services in thousands of communities. While it might be possible to create a co-op spanning a similar geography, it would be difficult to have a meaningful democratic control and economic participation through multiple languages, cultures, and nationalities. In addition, Uber and Lyft exist, in my view, more as research labs for their investors (Google among them), so even breaking even isn’t the priority that it would be for a driver-owned platform. It may be possible to simply serve a single area. However, drivers for Uber and Lyft don’t make any more than cab drivers even with millions in marketing support provided by these companies, I a skeptical that a one community company can breakthrough in a single market.

Secondly, a key part of the Uber/Lyft plan works on ignoring liability insurance. This falls on the individual drivers (although there are umbrella plans provided through these companies, the insurance only kicks in if the driver’s insurance is exhausted). However, as far as I know, most insurance companies will not cover pay-for-service transportation on individual plans, which means that the drivers and passengers are completely at risk. Uber and Lyft have a phalanx of lawyers, lobbyists, and a mountain of cash to change laws (as they did in Wisconsin and Virginia) and fight lawsuits.

As to why the platform co-op model shouldn’t re-create Uber, the first act of this company, and others like it, in most cities was to break local ordinances on public transportation (in many cities, such as Madison, taxicabs are considered a “public conveyance”). Most importantly, they effectively red line the ridership based on their ability to own a smartphone, access to either a credit or debit card, and physical abilities. This simple act eliminates a huge percentage of people who need curb to curb transportation. They pretended to have no control over the drivers, even though they do through the software, and this allows drivers to red line their service area for other reasons. These are not cooperative values or cooperative ways of conducting business. Whatever drivers do to collectively challenge the Uber model, they must not copy it.

Taxi cab companies serve their communities and are generally tied to the community. The platform driver model allows a driver with no ties to the community to swoop in and cherry pick rides during peak events. With no connection to the community, there is no responsibility to the community. Co-ops have the ethical values of social responsibility and caring for others. The 7th Principle of Cooperation is Concern for Communities.

Taxi co-ops tend to operate on the co-op values of self-help, self-responsibility, solidarity, and many others. I point out these three, because a connection exists between the drivers of a taxi co-op that enables drivers and staff of the co-op to protect each other, help each other, and provide the education, information, and training that is fundamental to cooperation and a democratic community. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to interview some of the members of Union Taxi in Denver. They pointed out that with the co-op, their lease dropped by $500/week ($26,000 a year). This meant having weekends to spend with their children. At the same time, they still made more than the Uber drivers, had the support of their peers, and access to material support (maintenance, group purchasing, etc.).

A platform transportation co-op that I could get behind would be a secondary or tertiary co-op that provides technical support for the 7-8 taxi co-ops in the country that would offer multi-city support for consumers, provide dispatch and management software for the taxi co-ops, and help start new taxi co-ops. The individual co-ops would be members of the app co-op, pay dues and service fees, help build the co-op community, and have a national narrative about licensed, trained, and safe drivers. They could message the co-op difference about creating safe working conditions, decent pay and benefits, and being a part of the communities that they serve. The could even encourage passengers to add to a co-op development fund as part of the fare (over the tip, of course).

 

Header image by Rob Chandanais. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

 

John McNamara is a Cooperative Development Specialist with the Northwest Cooperative Development Center. He was a member-owner of Union Cab of Madison for close to 26 years and is a founding member of the late, great Democracy at Work Network.

Comments

Matthew Epperson

Hey John! Great article, definitely hit the points of concern, and raised some I had not thought of. I was curious if you were already familiar with Eva? Ironically also learned about them through GEO: https://geo.coop/story/co-operative-ride-sharing-eva-co-op. Not sure how they would respond to this, but definitely rich food for thought about the co-op difference in a gig economy setting. I'm curious about your hesitance around multinational cooperatives across languages, cultures, etc. I know we've seen this be a hurdle to co-ops like Mondragon and some of the international co-ops in Emilia Romagna, particularly regarding extending membership trans-nationally. I am curious if you think the ICA in a most idealized form would be truly an apex cooperative whose chief role was the coordination of cooperative values and principles (notably trade in the form of P6) across cultures, preserving the autonomy and independence of primary through tertiary co-ops across the globe?

In reply to by hep ingham

John McNamara

The big issue is insurance. If a driver gets into a collision, does Eva bear the liability or the driver--in the US, the insurance laws tend to vary by state but most insurance companies have special policies for pay-for-hire transportation and it is not covered on an individual policy. This is the first of many questions, but it would be great to see how drivers and the community are supported through local management (do people who can't afford smartphones have a different option? How accessible is blockchain to someone who doesn't have a bank account?) Do you encourage drivers with wheelchair-accessible vehicles to participate?

In reply to by Matthew Epperson

John McNamara

I think that multinationals co-op would work, but the model of creating meaningful member control (meetings, information, etc) and adjusting for different costs of living and currency valuations would be quite complicated (at least for worker cooperatives). Consumer co-ops using platform models (such as Resonate) might be easier, but then consumer co-ops don't have as engaged a membership. I don't know enough about how the ICA engages its duties but think that they could expand their regional departments to more than 4 (currently they are Europe, Americas, Africa, and Asia and Pacific). CICOPA Americas did subdivide into North and South a few years ago and that was a difficult but important step in understanding differences the regions. I would love to hear what others think on this!

In reply to by John McNamara

Leo Sammallahti

I have wrote about few implications of global coops - they could cause a tendency for competition between cooperatives of the same industry, and cooperation between cooperatives of different industries (the opposite tendency seems to be true for conventional coops - electric coops cooperate with each other more than they do with credit unions). Here's the reasoning:

<p>
Co-operatives with mass-membership in numerous countries will resolve the paradoxical tendency of co-operatives organising globally but operating locally. However, a new paradoxical development follows as a result of everyone online being a potential member. There will be an increase in cooperation between co-ops offering different services and competition between co-ops offering the same services. The following example explains why this is:

1. An Iowan and Californian watch a documentary film about two co-ops, one in Iowa and one in Alaska. Even if both are inspired by the film, only the Iowan has the possibility to join a coop presented in the film as a result, and even then only one of the co-ops.


 2. An Iowan and an Indian watch a film about Resonate and Coop Exchange. Both can join both co-ops in just a few minutes. This can create co-operation between co-ops, as both benefit from promoting the same film.


 3. An Iowan and an Indian see a film about two online, fully global credit unions offering the same services. Even if both choose to join as a result, either is likely to open an account in both. If one has better rates, more of the viewers will join it. This creates competition, as it can make more sense for both credit unions to create their own documentary film that does not promote competitors.



 4. A credit union in Iowa and India don’t compete with each other, but two fully global credit unions would compete with each other and the credit union in Iowa and India. A cooperative offering the same services everywhere in the world competes with all co-operatives offering the same services anywhere.


 So there is a potential for a new dynamic - whilst cooperation between cooperatives has mainly happened between cooperatives of the same industry and region, platform cooperatives might create cooperation globally between cooperatives of different industries."
</p>

From: https://coop.exchange/blog/8dacd4b1-362b-11ea-8997-06ceb0bf34bd/4-scena…

Leo Sammallahti

One development from global cooperatives:

"Co-operatives with mass-membership in numerous countries will resolve the paradoxical tendency of co-operatives organising globally but operating locally. However, a new paradoxical development follows as a result of everyone online being a potential member. There will be an increase in cooperation between co-ops offering different services and competition between co-ops offering the same services. The following example explains why this is:

1. An Iowan and Californian watch a documentary film about two co-ops, one in Iowa and one in Alaska. Even if both are inspired by the film, only the Iowan has the possibility to join a coop presented in the film as a result, and even then only one of the co-ops.


 2. An Iowan and an Indian watch a film about Resonate and Coop Exchange. Both can join both co-ops in just a few minutes. This can create co-operation between co-ops, as both benefit from promoting the same film.


 3. An Iowan and an Indian see a film about two online, fully global credit unions offering the same services. Even if both choose to join as a result, either is likely to open an account in both. If one has better rates, more of the viewers will join it. This creates competition, as it can make more sense for both credit unions to create their own documentary film that does not promote competitors.



 4. A credit union in Iowa and India don’t compete with each other, but two fully global credit unions would compete with each other and the credit union in Iowa and India. A cooperative offering the same services everywhere in the world competes with all co-operatives offering the same services anywhere.


 So there is a potential for a new dynamic - whilst cooperation between cooperatives has mainly happened between cooperatives of the same industry and region, platform cooperatives might create cooperation globally between cooperatives of different industries."

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA This question is to verify that you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam.

What does the G in GEO stand for?