I was standing at an airport curb when a driver I know tapped his app and cursed under his breath. His earnings line blinked lower, a slow theft he’d already blamed on driverless cars. He told me he felt like the ground had started to move beneath him.
I’ve followed Uber for years. You know how this story usually goes: platform versus people, tech versus paychecks. Now the script has flipped in an odd, tactical alliance.
An Uber lobbyist showed up in a New Jersey hearing; the company is quietly backing rules that slow driverless cabs — Uber, Fearing Getting Uber-ed, Finally Sides With Driver Unions
You might expect Uber and unions to be on opposite sides. I expected that, too. But with Waymo, Aurora and other autonomous players expanding robotaxi fleets, Uber has begun to act as if its own survival depends on keeping human drivers on the road.
That’s not rhetorical. According to the Financial Times, Uber supported a New Jersey proposal requiring human drivers to be present for at least 85% of robotaxi trips. In Washington, D.C., it signed onto legislation that would keep driverless cars off the streets. Those are tactical retreats from a company that once invested heavily in self-driving development, then sold its Advanced Technologies Group to Aurora for $4 billion (€3.6 billion) in 2020.
Why is Uber siding with driver unions now?
Because the math changed. In cities where autonomous services are live, Uber’s own data warns of falling utilization and lower hourly pay for its drivers. I don’t need to tell you what that does to an already fragile workforce: drivers work longer hours or chase different neighborhoods to make up lost income.
A driver in Atlanta told city council members he was missing airport runs; unions then asked for a small fee on robotaxi rides — Local fights are multiplying across the country
The Atlanta Rideshare Drivers Union asked city leaders for a $0.50 (€0.46) to $1 (€0.92) per-ride robotaxi impact fee to fund a driver support fund. They’re also pushing to keep autonomous pickups away from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, a steady source of income many drivers depend on.
Axios reported the push, and you can see the pattern: where robotaxis appear, rides and earnings dip. Uber acknowledged those signals in a policy paper: drivers who prize flexibility may be hit first, the company warned. So now Uber’s lobbying sometimes overlaps with the unions’ demands.
How will robotaxis affect drivers’ earnings?
Short answer: downward pressure. In San Francisco and Los Angeles, where robotaxis are more available, Uber notes fewer trips per driver and weaker hourly pay. That reduction spreads unequally: workers on the margins feel it most, while others may have to shift hours or neighborhoods to keep the same take-home.
A Waymo platform split in Phoenix is an observable turning point; the largest robotaxi player is testing independence from Uber — that shift matters to every driver
Waymo already pulled away in Phoenix and operates its own hailing platform there, according to Reuters and TechCrunch reporting. If Waymo scales that model, it removes a major revenue stream Uber once collected for connecting riders and AV fleets.
Uber’s current posture looks defensive. It’s invested in autonomous firms and has exclusivity deals, but it’s not the hub in some cities anymore. That makes it logical, coldly, for Uber to slow the rollout rather than lose market share entirely. You can imagine the boardroom calculus: lose drivers and risk regulatory backlash, or slow AV deployment and keep a human fleet as a buffer.
A driver in San Francisco said his hours were stretched thinner; unions are responding with proposals and fights at city halls — the political playbook is expanding
Organized drivers and unions are not asking to ban autonomy forever. They’re asking for protections: fees to fund reskilling and income support, limits on airport pickups, and rules that stop robotaxis from instantly cannibalizing livelihoods.
Those proposals are practical: a modest per-ride fee can seed a fund for workers facing displacement. Uber’s backing in some of these fights suddenly gives the proposals heft. Financial Times and Gizmodo asked Uber about its lobbying; the company did not offer public comment in some instances, but the filings tell their own story.
What laws are being proposed to limit robotaxis?
Examples are already on the table: New Jersey’s 85% human-driver rule, D.C.’s moratorium-style measures, and Atlanta’s per-ride fee proposal. States and cities are experimenting fast, and companies like Waymo, Aurora and Ford’s AV efforts are watching each test closely.
There is a theater to this: companies advertise safety, regulators cite public interest, drivers plead for livelihoods. You can see why unions and Uber would find common cause when the threat is a fully driverless marketplace that cuts demand for human labor.
Still, the alliance is fragile. Uber once built a self-driving team, then sold it. It now keeps investments across autonomous startups while lobbying to slow robotaxi access. That is strategy, not salvation; it’s a company hedging bets.
I will give you one metaphor: this fight is moving like a frost creeping over a summer lawn—slow, quiet, and capable of killing the green you didn’t think was fragile. Here’s the second: the policy clock is running down like a chess clock counting down, and each city’s decision shifts the board.
Where does that leave drivers and the platforms? If Uber had its own dominant robotaxi network, would it have pushed for protections? History makes me skeptical. But if a company that once wanted drivers in the passenger seat now fights to keep them behind the wheel, you have to ask whether pragmatism or politics is winning.
I’ve watched negotiations, read filings from TechCrunch, Reuters, FT and Axios, and listened to drivers who say their apps no longer promise the same paycheck. You can choose to side with innovation or with workers, or try to do both; each choice has costs.
So who wins if robotaxis scale and regulators bend? Will cities protect human livelihoods, or will corporate market-making decide the answer?