Uber收購外賣公司Postmates，為何被批評為“邪惡交易”
Robert Hackett
2020-07-11
7月6日，Uber同意以26.5億美元收購送餐服務公司Postmates，令投資者歡呼雀躍，但另外一群人的反應卻截然相反，他們是網約車行業和送餐行業的主力零工人員。
伊丹·阿爾瓦是一名司機，他在Uber曝出丑聞后的幾年轉投Lyft。他形容Uber收購Postmates的交易是“不道德的”和“邪惡的”，因為這會助長Uber壓榨工人工資的能力。在這些基于應用程序的公司收取的車費和訂餐費中，網約車司機和送餐員可以獲得一定的抽成，但比例已經大幅下降。
阿爾瓦同時還是勞工權益組織Gig Workers Rising的發起人。他說：“這筆交易如同允許一個貪污分子收購一家銀行。”
阿爾瓦說他在灣區運送乘客平均每小時的收入約為20美元至22美元。但扣除油費和意外車輛維修費（僅去年就有5次爆胎）以后，他估計自己的收入“絕對遠低于每小時15美元”，而且“極有可能接近10美元。”
阿爾瓦譴責網約車公司的“掠奪策略”，他說這種策略的設計目的就是最大程度壓低人們的報酬，包括把公司最基本的工作者、司機和送餐員認定為承包商，而不是有權享有福利的全職員工等。Uber和其他零工經濟公司目前正在抗爭加州的一項法律，這項法律可能迫使這些公司將其旗下的工作者重新劃分為全職員工。
這些公司豪擲數千萬美元，試圖發起一項替代性的州公民表決提案，讓它們能夠在規則改革中得到豁免。
食物金字塔頂端的爭奪
為了抗擊全球新冠疫情，各地政府紛紛采取封城措施，導致網約車公司和送餐公司的業務陷入困境。即使在這種情況下，這些公司為了爭奪市場份額依舊沒有停止廝殺。
DoorDash的送餐員路易斯·瓦斯克斯曾經是Uber和Lyft的司機，他在新冠疫情爆發時改為送餐。他對行業整合表示擔憂。對于Uber收購Postmates的交易，他說：“我覺得這對司機來說不公平，也不是什么好事。Uber之所以這樣做是因為它們想要主宰這個行業。”
消費趨勢跟蹤機構Edison Trends表示，Uber與Postmates合并后將占到美國送餐行業37%的市場份額。這將使其僅次于當前的市場領導者DoorDash。DoorDash占有44%的市場份額。
盡管在疫情期間，競爭依舊愈演愈烈。DoorDash上個月剛剛融資4億美元，估值接近160億美元。Grubhub擁有17%的市場份額。在傳聞中與Uber的交易失敗之后不久，該公司上個月同意出售荷蘭Just Eat Takeaway公司。
隨著競爭對手逐漸減少，剩下的公司紛紛提供最便宜、最便利的服務，這壓縮了公司的利潤空間。
瓦斯克斯是一位單身父親。他哀嘆說自己的收入越來越少。談及早在五年前的收入，瓦斯克斯說：“開始的時候收入真得不錯。”
他說：“現在卻變成了雞肋。”
拆東墻補西墻
有些司機譴責Uber花數十億美元收購Postmates，給工作者支付的報酬卻少得可憐。
妮可·穆爾是一位Lyft兼職司機。她形容Uber的行為非常虛偽。她說：“他們沒有錢給人們支付基本工資，卻有錢收購一家全新的公司？”
穆爾說：“我認為這筆交易就是一記響亮的耳光。”她是另外一家勞動者權益組織Rideshare Drivers United的發起人。該組織正在鼓動網約車司機建立工會。
Postmates的送餐員彼得·楊說，他看不出Uber收購Postmates有任何好處。他在一封電子郵件中寫道：“我不覺得交易之后，勞動者的待遇會有任何好轉。收入不會增加，就業保障也不會有任何改善。”
此外，楊說他擔心這筆交易會影響人們的就業狀況，包括他自己在內。他說，他做過兩年Uber司機，但一年前他發生過一次小事故之后，Uber取消了他的資格，直接把他踢出了平臺。
楊說，在Postmates被Uber收購之后，他擔心自己也會被Postmates封殺。雖然Postmates已經向送餐員承諾該筆收購不會對送餐員的工作產生直接影響，但他認為，這個承諾“像他們的話一樣蒼白無力。”
楊補充說：“現在他們說的都是廢話。”
Uber強調其關心工作者的利益
但也有人對該筆交易持更樂觀的態度。
前Uber和Lyft司機邁克爾·古墨拉表達了截然相反的觀點。古墨拉目前經營一個有關網約車行業的博客Rideshare Report。他說，從長遠來看，他認為行業整合“實際上對司機是有利的”，因為這將迫使更多工作者團結起來，從而更容易“實現勞資談判的目的”。
但古墨拉指出，Uber“進行[該筆交易]根本不是為了司機的利益。”
Uber聲稱收購Postmates將對零工人員有利。一位發言人在寫給《財富》雜志的電子郵件中表示，憑借合并后的餐廳網絡、訂單和送餐機會，“我們能夠為餐廳和食品雜貨店等領域的派送人員提供更可預測的、更豐厚的收入機會。”
然而，對于該筆交易對零工人員的好處，接受《財富》雜志采訪的多數人都持懷疑態度。Postmates的送餐員保羅·奧哈是一個非官方的Facebook同行群組的管理員，他說他認為該筆交易“給送餐員帶來好處的可能性微乎其微。”
奧哈說：“希望Uber能像可口可樂公司（Coca-Cola）那樣做。”他的意思是，Uber最終為消費者提供許多選擇（用按需服務應用與軟飲料對比），基本上形成內部競爭的格局。
他說，成為送餐員就像是加入了一場充滿不確定性的經濟“游戲”。潛在雇主越少，代表“設計城市”的方法越少，也就意味著潛在回報減少。
失去胃口，贏得戰爭
如果Uber授予Postmates一定程度的獨立自主權，允許司機、商戶和客戶根據自己的偏好在不同應用程序之間切換，這將帶來更多選擇和更高的靈活性。但該筆交易背后的邏輯顯然是為了利用整合和規模經濟節約成本。
Uber在公布該交易的聲明中表示，在明年第一季度交易按計劃完成之后，公司“打算允許面向消費者的Postmates應用繼續獨立運營。”公司還表示，計劃合并兩家公司的后端業務，并削減日常開支2億美元。
威爾弗雷德·陳是一位自由撰稿人。他平時通過在Postmates等按需服務應用程序上送餐來賺取外快。他總結了零工人員的焦慮。行業整合將使零工人員越來越受制于少數幾家超級強大的公司。
他說：“問題是，這意味著工作者的選擇越來越少，也意味著平臺變得更加龐大，越來越難以對付。隨著Uber的霸權不斷擴大，它們會有更多手段對付工作者，剝削我們的手段也會變得更加殘忍。”（財富中文網）
譯者：Biz
7月6日，Uber同意以26.5億美元收購送餐服務公司Postmates，令投資者歡呼雀躍，但另外一群人的反應卻截然相反，他們是網約車行業和送餐行業的主力零工人員。
伊丹·阿爾瓦是一名司機，他在Uber曝出丑聞后的幾年轉投Lyft。他形容Uber收購Postmates的交易是“不道德的”和“邪惡的”，因為這會助長Uber壓榨工人工資的能力。在這些基于應用程序的公司收取的車費和訂餐費中，網約車司機和送餐員可以獲得一定的抽成，但比例已經大幅下降。
阿爾瓦同時還是勞工權益組織Gig Workers Rising的發起人。他說：“這筆交易如同允許一個貪污分子收購一家銀行。”
阿爾瓦說他在灣區運送乘客平均每小時的收入約為20美元至22美元。但扣除油費和意外車輛維修費（僅去年就有5次爆胎）以后，他估計自己的收入“絕對遠低于每小時15美元”，而且“極有可能接近10美元。”
阿爾瓦譴責網約車公司的“掠奪策略”，他說這種策略的設計目的就是最大程度壓低人們的報酬，包括把公司最基本的工作者、司機和送餐員認定為承包商，而不是有權享有福利的全職員工等。Uber和其他零工經濟公司目前正在抗爭加州的一項法律，這項法律可能迫使這些公司將其旗下的工作者重新劃分為全職員工。
這些公司豪擲數千萬美元，試圖發起一項替代性的州公民表決提案，讓它們能夠在規則改革中得到豁免。
食物金字塔頂端的爭奪
為了抗擊全球新冠疫情，各地政府紛紛采取封城措施，導致網約車公司和送餐公司的業務陷入困境。即使在這種情況下，這些公司為了爭奪市場份額依舊沒有停止廝殺。
DoorDash的送餐員路易斯·瓦斯克斯曾經是Uber和Lyft的司機，他在新冠疫情爆發時改為送餐。他對行業整合表示擔憂。對于Uber收購Postmates的交易，他說：“我覺得這對司機來說不公平，也不是什么好事。Uber之所以這樣做是因為它們想要主宰這個行業。”
消費趨勢跟蹤機構Edison Trends表示，Uber與Postmates合并后將占到美國送餐行業37%的市場份額。這將使其僅次于當前的市場領導者DoorDash。DoorDash占有44%的市場份額。
盡管在疫情期間，競爭依舊愈演愈烈。DoorDash上個月剛剛融資4億美元，估值接近160億美元。Grubhub擁有17%的市場份額。在傳聞中與Uber的交易失敗之后不久，該公司上個月同意出售荷蘭Just Eat Takeaway公司。
隨著競爭對手逐漸減少，剩下的公司紛紛提供最便宜、最便利的服務，這壓縮了公司的利潤空間。
瓦斯克斯是一位單身父親。他哀嘆說自己的收入越來越少。談及早在五年前的收入，瓦斯克斯說：“開始的時候收入真得不錯。”
他說：“現在卻變成了雞肋。”
拆東墻補西墻
有些司機譴責Uber花數十億美元收購Postmates，給工作者支付的報酬卻少得可憐。
妮可·穆爾是一位Lyft兼職司機。她形容Uber的行為非常虛偽。她說：“他們沒有錢給人們支付基本工資，卻有錢收購一家全新的公司？”
穆爾說：“我認為這筆交易就是一記響亮的耳光。”她是另外一家勞動者權益組織Rideshare Drivers United的發起人。該組織正在鼓動網約車司機建立工會。
Postmates的送餐員彼得·楊說，他看不出Uber收購Postmates有任何好處。他在一封電子郵件中寫道：“我不覺得交易之后，勞動者的待遇會有任何好轉。收入不會增加，就業保障也不會有任何改善。”
此外，楊說他擔心這筆交易會影響人們的就業狀況，包括他自己在內。他說，他做過兩年Uber司機，但一年前他發生過一次小事故之后，Uber取消了他的資格，直接把他踢出了平臺。
楊說，在Postmates被Uber收購之后，他擔心自己也會被Postmates封殺。雖然Postmates已經向送餐員承諾該筆收購不會對送餐員的工作產生直接影響，但他認為，這個承諾“像他們的話一樣蒼白無力。”
楊補充說：“現在他們說的都是廢話。”
Uber強調其關心工作者的利益
但也有人對該筆交易持更樂觀的態度。
前Uber和Lyft司機邁克爾·古墨拉表達了截然相反的觀點。古墨拉目前經營一個有關網約車行業的博客Rideshare Report。他說，從長遠來看，他認為行業整合“實際上對司機是有利的”，因為這將迫使更多工作者團結起來，從而更容易“實現勞資談判的目的”。
但古墨拉指出，Uber“進行[該筆交易]根本不是為了司機的利益。”
Uber聲稱收購Postmates將對零工人員有利。一位發言人在寫給《財富》雜志的電子郵件中表示，憑借合并后的餐廳網絡、訂單和送餐機會，“我們能夠為餐廳和食品雜貨店等領域的派送人員提供更可預測的、更豐厚的收入機會。”
然而，對于該筆交易對零工人員的好處，接受《財富》雜志采訪的多數人都持懷疑態度。Postmates的送餐員保羅·奧哈是一個非官方的Facebook同行群組的管理員，他說他認為該筆交易“給送餐員帶來好處的可能性微乎其微。”
奧哈說：“希望Uber能像可口可樂公司（Coca-Cola）那樣做。”他的意思是，Uber最終為消費者提供許多選擇（用按需服務應用與軟飲料對比），基本上形成內部競爭的格局。
他說，成為送餐員就像是加入了一場充滿不確定性的經濟“游戲”。潛在雇主越少，代表“設計城市”的方法越少，也就意味著潛在回報減少。
失去胃口，贏得戰爭
如果Uber授予Postmates一定程度的獨立自主權，允許司機、商戶和客戶根據自己的偏好在不同應用程序之間切換，這將帶來更多選擇和更高的靈活性。但該筆交易背后的邏輯顯然是為了利用整合和規模經濟節約成本。
Uber在公布該交易的聲明中表示，在明年第一季度交易按計劃完成之后，公司“打算允許面向消費者的Postmates應用繼續獨立運營。”公司還表示，計劃合并兩家公司的后端業務，并削減日常開支2億美元。
威爾弗雷德·陳是一位自由撰稿人。他平時通過在Postmates等按需服務應用程序上送餐來賺取外快。他總結了零工人員的焦慮。行業整合將使零工人員越來越受制于少數幾家超級強大的公司。
他說：“問題是，這意味著工作者的選擇越來越少，也意味著平臺變得更加龐大，越來越難以對付。隨著Uber的霸權不斷擴大，它們會有更多手段對付工作者，剝削我們的手段也會變得更加殘忍。”（財富中文網）
譯者：Biz
As investors cheered on Uber's agreement to buy Postmates for $2.65 billion on July 6, another crowd reacted differently: the gig workers who underpin the ride-hailing and food-delivery business.
Edan Alva, a driver who opted for Lyft over Uber during the latter’s years of scandal, called the deal "unethical" and "immoral" because, he said, it will amplify Uber's ability to suppress worker pay. Drivers and food couriers receive a share of the ride and meal-order fees charged by the app-based companies, which also take a hefty cut.
"It's like if a large-scale embezzler were allowed to buy a bank," said Alva, who is also an organizer for Gig Workers Rising, a labor advocacy group.
Alva said he makes roughly $20 to $22 hourly on average ferrying passengers around the Bay Area. But after expenses like gas and unexpected car maintenance costs—he had five flat tires in the past year alone—his take is “definitely well below $15 per hour,” and “possibly closer to the $10 point," he estimates.
Alva criticized ride-hailing firms’ “predatory tactics” that he said are designed to minimize people’s compensation, including by recognizing their most essential workers, drivers and couriers, as contractors rather than as full-time employees with benefits. Uber and fellow gig-economy companies are currently fighting a law in California that could force them to reclassify their workers as full-time employees.
The companies are shelling out tens of millions of dollars to promote an alternate state ballot initiative that would exempt them from the rule change.
Fighting atop the food pyramid
Ride-hailing and food-delivery businesses are locked in a fierce battle for market share even as the lockdown measures imposed by authorities to combat the global coronavirus pandemic cause their core operations to flounder.
Luis Vasquez, a DoorDash courier who used to pick up passengers for Uber and Lyft before switching to meal delivery amid the onset of COVID-19, said he is concerned about the industry consolidation. "I don't think it's gonna be fair or good for the drivers," he said of the Uber-Postmates deal. "Uber is doing this because they want to take over."
A combined Uber-Postmates would claim 37% of food delivery market share in the U.S., according to payments-tracker Edison Trends. That would make it the runner-up to the current leader, DoorDash, which has a 44% market share.
Competition continues to heighten, despite the pandemic. DoorDash just last month raised $400 million at a nearly $16 billion valuation. Grubhub, which last month agreed to sell to Netherlands’ Just Eat Takeaway shortly after a rumored deal with Uber fell through, has 17% of the market.
Margins have slimmed as a narrowing band of rivals compete to offer the cheapest, most convenient service.
Vasquez, a single parent, lamented the continual reduction in pay his assignments provide. "When I started it was really good,” he said of his early earnings five years ago.
“Now it's crap,” Vasquez said.
Robbing Peter to feed Paul
Some drivers blasted Uber for spending billions on Postmates while paying workers a pittance.
Nicole Moore, a part-time driver for Lyft, described Uber's actions as hypocritical. "They don't have the money to pay people basic labor standards, but they have the money to buy a whole new company?" she said.
"To me, this is a slap in the face," said Moore, who is also an organizer for Rideshare Drivers United, another worker advocacy group that is agitating to unionize ride-hailing drivers.
Peter Young, a courier for Postmates, said he sees no upside to the Uber-Postmates deal. “I don't really see anything getting better for workers after this. I don't expect pay to rise, or job security to improve, or anything,” he wrote in an email.
Further, Young said, he fears the deal could affect people’s employment status, including his own. After two years transporting riders for Uber, the company “deactivated” him, effectively booting him from its platform, after he got into a “fender-bender” accident last year, he said.
Young said he worries that Postmates could ban him, too, as it gets absorbed by Uber. Though Postmates has assured couriers the acquisition won’t have an immediate effect on their ability to work, that promise, he said, is “only as strong as their word."
"And their word generally means nothing these days,” Young added.
Ride sharing is caring
Some people looked more optimistically on the deal.
Michael Gumora, a former Uber and Lyft driver who now runs Rideshare Report, a blog about the ride-sharing business, gave an opposing view. He said he thinks the consolidation will be "good for drivers actually" in the long term, because it will force more workers together, making it easier for them "to get together for the purposes of collective bargaining."
But, Gumora noted, Uber is “not doing [the deal] for the benefit of the drivers at all.”
Uber contends its acquisition of Postmates will offer advantages to their gig workers. A spokesperson wrote to Fortune in an email that with the combined network of restaurants, orders, and opportunities for delivery fulfillment, "we'll be able to offer even stronger and more predictable earning opportunities to delivery people across meals, grocery, and more."
Most people Fortune interviewed were skeptical of any possible benefits for gig workers, however. Paul Oh, a Postmates courier who is the administrator of an unofficial Facebook group for his peers, said he sees only "a very slim chance it is a positive thing for couriers."
"Hopefully, Uber approaches this like Coca-Cola," Oh said, meaning that Uber ends up offering so many options to consumers—on-demand apps versus soft drinks, in this case—that it basically competes against itself.
Being a courier is like participating in an uncertain economic “game,” Oh said. Fewer potential employers means fewer ways “to play your city,” which means less potential reward.
Losing an appetite, winning the war
If Uber grants Postmates some level of separation and autonomy, allowing drivers, merchants, and customers to switch between apps based on their preferences, it could allow for more choice and flexibility. But the logic for the deal no doubt derives from savings presented by consolidation and economies of scale.
In statement announcing the deal, Uber said it “intends to keep the consumer-facing Postmates app running separately” even after the transaction closes, slated for the first quarter of next year. The company said it also plans to combine back-end operations and cut $200 million in overhead costs.
Wilfred Chan, a freelance writer who supplements his income by delivering meals for on-demand apps like Postmates, summed up his gig-worker peers' anxieties. The move puts gig workers increasingly at the mercy of a few ultrapowerful players.
"The problem is that it means less choice for workers. It means that these platforms are growing bigger and harder to fight," Chan said. "As Uber's hegemony grows, they're going to have even more leverage against workers and be able to exploit us even more harshly.”
財富中文網所刊載內容之知識產權為財富媒體知識產權有限公司及/或相關權利人專屬所有或持有。未經許可，禁止進行轉載、摘編、復制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
