Uber could always find more people to drive cars though - it’s not a rare skill. It’s also the reason you don’t see a lot of fast food unions. If you can train a new employee in a week there’s a limit to the (union) demands it makes sense to comply with. Union shop grocery stores are one exception: a rare holdout of an earlier era.

But anyway, even though Uber might lose some sales in the short term while they build up more drivers, if the union’s demands would make the rides barely profitable (or where Uber loses money) then that’s not really an actual loss.

Not to mention it’s the drivers who still pay depreciation and insurance cost of their cars whether or not they drive.

Similar to another commenter I don’t really care or have a dog in this race, I’m just commenting on the actors and what their relative advantages are.

I wonder how much Uber/Lyft actually loses when nobody drives vs loses opportunity. A big part of union negotiating strength is how large the costs of doing nothing (like leases or contract delivery terms) is but I honestly have no clue how that works for Uber/Lyft (and it may vary a lot by region depending what Uber/Lyft are required to do in each area).

Not sure I agree. They have plenty of cash and can wait it out. The drivers don't.

I personally don't care about this as long as the costs aren't passed on to me.

Eh, the supply of drivers isn't as fungible as you might think. Insurance is quite expensive, that's what keeps me from doing it from time to time. That and I have zero desire to have to deal with the public.

> Yeah, and that would disrupt Uber badly in the area.

So what? Uber operates all over the world, losing some revenue (maybe not even profit) in one region is a loss they can eat. A Taxi company couldn't eat this kind of loss and would be forced to negotiate. Uber though? They can tough it out if it's advantageous to them.

This is the inevitable result of replacing local taxi monopolies or cartels with a multinational "tech" duopoly.