I worked at Uber and was closely involved during multiple driver strikes in Bangalore. This often meant long days at HSR/BTM traffic police stations, dealing directly with frustrated drivers.
Whenever we cut driver incentives at a per-trip level or introduced complex incentive structures, the pushback was immediate and intense. These decisions were driven by market share goal getting more drivers onboard to meet demand. In hindsight, this was never sustainable.
We later shifted focus: Increased trip fares,Non-monetary benefits (insurance, fuel, groceries), Alerts for drivers exceeding 60 hours/week, Regular focus group discussions via an initiative I launched called Uber Samaaj
Despite this, backlash continued. It simply became part of the job.
The real perspective shift came when I moved to Colombo.
There, I saw part-time drivers driving ~22 hours/week actually benefiting from the platform.
Higher fares meant decent earnings without overworking. That’s when it clicked: these platforms were designed for part-timers, not full-time dependency.
The market contrast explains a lot.
In 2019: Melbourne avg trip fare ≈ $8
India avg trip fare ≈ $3
When fares are low, drivers compensate by increasing hours. Longer hours lead to fatigue, dissatisfaction, and inevitable conflict with platforms.
This isn’t just an Uber issue.
It’s a structural problem across all gig platforms in price-sensitive markets, where platforms optimize for flexibility, but workers seek stability.
Until this mismatch is acknowledged honestly, tension between gig platforms and workers will remain a permanent feature not a temporary bug.