# Ongoing Poll | Uber Settles #UberLAWSUIT With Concessions, but Drivers Stay Freelancers



## chi1cabby

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ns-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html?referer=

*APRIL 21, 2016*

SAN FRANCISCO - Uber has long been embroiled in a debate over the status of its drivers: Should they be independent contractors or full-time employees?

Uber says that as independent contractors, its drivers get flexibility. Their freelancer status also lets the company sidestep the costs of full-time employees, including paying minimum wage and the employers' share of Social Security. But labor groups and lawyers have argued that Uber drivers should be classified as employees to receive worker protections.

On Thursday, Uber moved a step closer to getting its way. The company reached a settlement in a pair of class-action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that will let it continue to categorize drivers in those states as independent contractors - a landmark agreement that could have lasting implications on the long-term viability of the ride-hailing service.

Under the settlement, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases. The company also agreed to several concessions to appease driver concerns, including giving more information on how and why drivers are banned from using the app, as well as aiding in creating new "drivers associations" in both states.

The settlement is a significant victory for Uber on the matter of its drivers' status. By keeping its drivers as contractors, the San Francisco-based company can keep its costs low. And while the settlement applies only to two states and is nonbinding elsewhere, the agreement and the changes that Uber is adopting may influence regulators in other places where the issue has surfaced.

"Drivers value their independence - the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," Travis Kalanick, chief executive of Uber, said in a company blog post announcing the settlement.

"That said, as Uber has grown - over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S. - we haven't always done a good job working with drivers," he wrote. "It's time to change."

The agreement, which is subject to approval by Judge Edward M. Chen, who is presiding over the cases, says Uber must pay $84 million to the plaintiffs represented in the case. Uber will dispense an additional $16 million if the company holds an initial public offering and the average valuation of Uber increases to one and a half times that of its last financing round. In December 2015, Uber was valued at $62.5 billion, making it the most valuable private technology company in the world.

The class-action suits that are being settled were originally filed in 2013 and became the biggest suits in terms of the number of drivers represented. Uber still faces litigation about driver status in other states, including similarlawsuits in Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Last June, the California Labor Commissioner's Office said Barbara Ann Berwick, a former driver for Uber, should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. That case, which does not apply to drivers other than Ms. Berwick, is being appealed by Uber.

The settlement's changes are aimed at reducing points of contention for drivers. In the past, Uber has been able to boot drivers from its platform with little explanation, something that Uber said it would no longer be able to do. The company published a lengthy document detailing all the reasons a driver may be deactivated, from unsafe driving and carrying a firearm - which is prohibited - to using drugs and alcohol.

Uber said it would also provide drivers with more information about their ratings system - a measurement based upon individual scores from passengers - and how ratings were calculated. The company is exploring creating an appeals process for Uber drivers who have been deactivated because of a low rating.

Uber also agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline to accept requests for rides from passengers, a practice that previously would contribute negatively to a driver's overall standing with the company. Instead, drivers may be temporarily logged out of the app and unable to accept new requests if they are "consistently not accepting trip requests."

"We know that sometimes things come up that prevent you from accepting every trip request, but not accepting dispatches causes delays and degrades the reliability of the system," the company said in its newly published driver deactivation policy.

Uber refers to a trip declined by a driver as a cancellation. Each city will have a maximum cancellation rate based on the average cancellation rate of the drivers in the area, the company said. It could eventually deactivate those who persistently exceed the rate.

Uber said many of the changes were a part of its overall maturation process, as it has grown from a small start-up to a global organization in roughly six years.

Yet many of the policy changes Uber announced as part of its settlement - particularly changes to its protocol on deactivating drivers over their cancellation and acceptance rates - appear designed to defuse the plaintiffs' arguments that Uber drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, as the company maintains.

Given that the proposed settlement would allow the company to continue pushing drivers to accept most rides, pick up most passengers and maintain their cars in certain ways - alevel of control that is often associated with employees rather than contractors - many critics of the company's labor model may not be appeased.

Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco and Noam Scheiber from Washington.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Now I need a lawsuit in my state so I can get some money


----------



## Drive777

http://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-dr...e-hailing-company-in-labor-dispute-1461292153

Another article from WSJ says drivers could post signs for tips in their cars:

"Under the terms of the settlement, Uber agreed to pay up to $100 million to these drivers in two states and revise its practice of deactivating drivers from the popular app without much warning or recourse. The company will also have to explain its decisions to terminate drivers, and in most cases must give warnings before removing drivers from the service. *Drivers will also be allowed to post signs in their cars soliciting tips from riders.*

The agreement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, would spare the company from a jury trial in San Francisco that had been set for June."


----------



## Cou-ber

Bart McCoy said:


> View attachment 36754


So each gets roughly $240. Retirement!


----------



## chi1cabby

chi1cabby said:


> Under the settlement, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases.


The vehicle cost compensation, calculated at ¢57.5/Mile was part of the #UberLAWSUIT.

Per Uber, Drivers work an avg of 16 hours per week.
Let's calculate avg speed at 20 MPH.
Drivers Vehicle Cost Compensation: 385,000 x 16hrs x 20mph x $0.575 = $70,840,000/Week or $3.68B/Year in potential damages.
In Lyft case, the *Judge rejected *a $12M settlement for $124M potential damages.
So I doubt that Judge Chen is likely to approve a $100M settlement award for $3.6B per year in potential damages!


----------



## tohunt4me

Bart McCoy said:


> Now I need a lawsuit in my state so I can get some money


Rate cut in your state.
Got to pay lawsuit.
Uber , cheaper than Bus.


----------



## Darrell

Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver. The lawyers will get millions, the drivers will get enough to spend in 1 week and slowly start getting deactivated by Uber for various reasons but really it's retaliation and they want get Unemployment. Uber just made a fool of the drivers.


----------



## riChElwAy

The biggest joke here is the drivers being able to meet with and "voice" their issues at Uber. OMFG what nonsense. Uber will be in full control of this "forum" which will always end with Uber saying "Well, we appreciate your input, thank you and have a nice day."


----------



## Slavic Riga

The picture on the caption is a perfect example of how everybody views us Drivers/Partners/IC's.
*"Sheep being led to the slaughter house".*


----------



## Slavic Riga

day tripper yeah... said:


> $259.74.....LOL....what a joke!


Calculation & amount will differ based on F/T & P/T partners.


----------



## Darrell

day tripper yeah... said:


> $259.74.....LOL....what a joke!


Nope, the lawyers get their 40 % off the top and the settlement was for 84 million with 16 million coming should Uber go public. That means the lawyers get 33.6 million of that. The drivers then split 50.4 million by 385,000 = $131.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

This is a sell out and a sad day for the drivers that are not even making the minimum wage. Lawyers are basically taking millions of dollars in fees and running while the drivers get less than $300. 

Let's hope Judge Chen will see through this sham and not approve it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

What an absolute joke of a settlement. This is the same joke of a settlement the judge already unapproved for Lyft.

We basically get nothing. $200 on average to each driver ??? What the hell is that ? We still aren't classified as employees so that means that any ongoing costs that Uber should be paying won't be paid to us for reimbursements that we CONTINUE to acrue and Uber still doesn't have to add a tip option.

What kind of idiot lawyer would allow this to proceed ? I thought that Riordian woman was supposed to be the best in the business. She's a joke! I wonder how much Uber and Lyft is paying to her secret Cayman Island's bank account to try to force these joke of settlements on us ???

The lawyers get millions and don't even have to force a trial ! Eff that !!


----------



## Undermensch

Darrell said:


> Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver. The lawyers will get millions, the drivers will get enough to spend in 1 week and slowly start getting deactivated by Uber for various reasons but really it's retaliation and they want get Unemployment. Uber just made a fool of the drivers.


That's why I was saying earlier that I regret opting out of binding arbitration and the reasons I regret it are:


I'm never going to sue Uber for anything - Face it, it's not gonna happen
All that opting out does is allow some jackass lawyer, who I'm never going to meet, to file a suit and include me in the class of plaintiffs that allows them to collect a bigger settlement, of which the lawyers get 95% of the money
Thanks, but no thanks. Drivers will see maybe $3.20 from this, each.


----------



## Undermensch

tohunt4me said:


> Rate cut in your state.
> Got to pay lawsuit.
> Uber , cheaper than Bus.


Does that qualify as a Haiku or have I had too many beers?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I bet over half of those drivers only drove to pocket the bonus. They should get nothing anyhow.


----------



## tohunt4me

Slavic Riga said:


> The picture on the caption is a perfect example of how everybody views us Drivers/Partners/IC's.
> *"Sheep being led to the slaughter house".*


Pax would complain,sheep hair too long, not shiney wool,nails not clipped,sheep smelled bad . . .
Incessant 'baaaahhhing'.


----------



## tohunt4me

Bob Reynolds said:


> This is a sell out and a sad day for the drivers that are not even making the minimum wage. Lawyers are basically taking millions of dollars in fees and running while the drivers get less than $300.
> 
> Let's hope Judge Chen will see through this sham and not approve it.


All JUDGES ARE LAWYERS.

Case was settled on golf course at country club.

Best justice you can buy !

Murica.


----------



## madUber74

Undermensch said:


> Does that qualify as a Haiku or have I had too many beers?


Close! Haiku form is 5-7-5, I think. Tidied up,

Got to pay lawsuit
Uber, cheaper than a bus
Rate cut in your state


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

I want to vomit. This has got to be a joke.


----------



## Ziggy

Cou-ber said:


> So each gets roughly $240. Retirement!


If that ... remember the final $16M doesn't have to get paid out until after Uber goes public, which by last report will be at least 3-5 years ... if ever considering how fast they are burning cash trying to buy their way into China.


----------



## dirtylee

You really don't want to be an uber employee. Doubling the rates would be better.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

They settle a multi billion dollar lawsuit for pennies on the dollar and get to continue to violate labor laws. I am absolutely in shock.


----------



## SD_Expedition

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_29798777/uber-settles-court-case-up-100-million
SAN FRANCISCO -- Dodging a legal threat to its future, Uber has agreed to pay up to $100 million to a group of its drivers to avoid having to treat them as regular employees.

Under terms of the deal announced Thursday evening, Uber would not have to reclassify its independent contractor drivers or offer them employee benefits such as minimum wage, overtime and reimbursement for driving expenses.

The case, scheduled for trial in June, has captivated the Bay Area because a ruling against Uber -- the world's most valuable startup -- had the potential to upend the exploding on-demand industry. Many other companies in the space follow Uber's independent contractor business model, which saves them money and -- they insist -- offers their workers flexibility.

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the 385,000 drivers in the dispute, said the settlement allows drivers to avoid the risk that a jury in San Francisco -- a city where Uber use is widespread -- would side with the ride-booking company. The settlement covers drivers in both California and Massachusetts, where Liss-Riordan's practice is based.

"We realize that some will be disappointed not to see this case go to trial in June," Liss-Riordan wrote in an email. "We were looking forward to this trial. But we believe the settlement we have been able to negotiate for Uber drivers throughout California and Massachusetts provides significant benefits -- both monetary and non-monetary -- that will improve the work lives of the drivers and justifies this compromise result."

If a federal judge approves the settlement, Uber will pay $84 million right away. The remaining $16 million is contingent on Uber's growth. If Uber's valuation grows by one and a half times in the first year after it goes public, the company will have to fork over the extra cash. Uber, valued at more than $60 billion, has not announced any plans for an IPO.

The money will be allotted to drivers based on how many miles they have driven for Uber, with drivers with more than 25,000 miles possibly receiving an average of $8,000, according to Liss-Riordan.

In a blog post Thursday evening, Uber CEO and co-founder Travis Kalanick reiterated the importance of classifying Uber drivers as independent contractors.

"Drivers value their independence -- the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," he wrote. "That's why we are so pleased that this settlement recognizes that drivers should remain as independent contractors, not employees."

The settlement may make it easier for drivers to earn tips, which was a main issue in the original lawsuit. Drivers claimed Uber told passengers that tips were included in the fare, but the company did not actually give tips to the drivers. As part of the agreement, Uber will let drivers post signs in their cars stating, "Tips are not included, they are not required, but they would be appreciated."

Uber also would no longer be able to kick drivers off the platform at will. Instead, drivers would be removed only for sufficient cause (not including accepting a low number of rides) and would most often receive warnings and the opportunity to correct problems. Drivers wishing to fight their removal could bring their concerns to an appeals panel made up of other Uber drivers.

And Uber drivers would be able to form a quasi union, dubbed a "driver association," which will bring any grievances to management.

In January, Lyft agreed to pay $12.25 million to settle similar claims, but the court rejected the settlement as too low earlier this month.

Liss-Riordan called the Uber deal one of the largest ever achieved on behalf of workers claiming misclassification as independent contractors, and wrote it stands as a warning for other companies who improperly deny their workers employee benefits.

"As a result of this litigation, many companies have chosen to go the other way and not fight this battle," she wrote, "and instead to classify their workers as employees with all the protections that accompany that classification."
This article says drivers that drove over 25000 miles would receive around $8000. So I'm not sure how the numbers can reflect that from what other have written on here.

Also, are they using the miles from the Uber account summary or our actual recorded miles? Because mine is much more than what the summary for Uber has.

A few hundred bucks from this lawsuit would be robbery considering.


----------



## chi1cabby

Subject: Breaking news - Uber will pay $100 million to settle independent contractor misclassification claims 
Breaking news - Uber will pay $100 million to settle independent contractor misclassification claims in California and Massachusetts; will make significant policy changes; drivers will be permitted to place signs in their cars notifying customers that "tips are not included" and would be appreciated; Uber to recognize Driver Association to bring drivers' issues of concern to Uber management

We are very pleased to announce that Uber has agreed to a historic settlement of the claims we have brought in California and Massachusetts for misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors. Under this agreement, Uber has agreed to pay up to $100 million to resolve these claims and will implement a number of significant policy changes. (Of the payment, $84 million is guaranteed and $16 million is contingent on an increase in Uber's future value.)

These changes include:

Uber will no longer be able to deactivate drivers at will. Instead, drivers may only be terminated for sufficient cause. And drivers will receive warnings in most instances and thus opportunity to correct any issues prior to deactivation.
Drivers will not be subject to deactivation for low acceptance rates.
Uber will institute appeal panels (made up of highly rated drivers) so that drivers who believe they have been unjustly terminated may bring their concerns to a panel of their peers.
Drivers who are not satisfied with the result of these appeals can bring their claim to a neutral arbitrator, at Uber's expense, who will determine if there was sufficient cause for the deactivation.
Uber will institute an internal escalation process for disputes regarding their pay.
Uber will facilitate and recognize the formation of a Driver Association, which will have leaders elected by fellow Uber drivers, who will be able to bring drivers' concerns to Uber management, who will engage in good faith discussions (on a quarterly basis) regarding how to address these concerns.
Finally, under the agreement, Uber will make clear to riders that tips are not included in Uber's fares. Drivers will be permitted to put small signs in their cars stating that "tips arenot included, they are not required, but they would be appreciated."
We believe these to be very significant changes that will improve work conditions for Uber drivers.

While this case has been pending, we have heard many complaints from drivers about being deactivated without good cause and frustrations about pay issues that they have not been able to get addressed by Uber management.

We have also heard many concerns that Uber does not consider how its policies impact its drivers and don't take the drivers' views into account when setting policies. The formation of the driver association - while not an officially recognized union - can play a role similar to a union, to bring drivers' grievances and concerns to Uber management, who will meet with the association's leaders on a quarterly basis to engage in good faith discussions about issues of concerns to drivers.

And finally, we believe it is a significant achievement that Uber will now be clear to riders that tips are actually NOT included in Uber's fares. Drivers will be able to place signs in their cars informing riders that tips are not included, and while they are not required, they would be appreciated. By Uber making clear to riders that tips are not included, we believe that many riders will now tip their Uber drivers because riders have been under the impression from Uber's prior communications that tips are included in the fares. When riders have the correct information, we expect they will be generous and appreciative of good service and many will tip their drivers. As a result, we expect that Uber drivers will receive substantially more pay as a result of riders' generosity, when riders are no longer under the misimpression that tips are already included.

We realize that some will be disappointed not to see this case go to trial in June. We were looking forward to this trial. But we believe the settlement we have been able to negotiate for Uber drivers throughout California and Massachusetts provides significant benefits - both monetary and non-monetary - that will improve the work lives of the drivers and justifies this compromise result (which will not result in the drivers being reclassified).

Importantly, the case is being settled - not decided. No court has decided here whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors and that debate will not end here. This case, however, with this significant payment of money, and attention that has been drawn to this issue, stands as a stern warning to companies who play fast and loose with classifying their workforce as independent contractors, who do not receive the benefits of the wage laws and other employee protections. As a result of this litigation, many companies have chosen to go the other way and not fight this battle, and instead to classify their workers as employees with all the protections that accompany that classification.

And if we chose not to settle this case, we faced risks. We faced the risk that a jury in San Francisco (where Uber is everywhere and quite popular) may not side with the drivers over Uber.

We faced a risk that the Ninth Circuit may disagree with the district court on his rulings certifying the case as a class action and holding Uber's arbitration clause to be unenforceable. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had disagreed with the district court on either of these two points, then the vast majority of Uber drivers would never receive anything at all for these claims and the non-monetary changes that are being made as a result of this settlement would not occur. Just recently, the Ninth Circuit issued an unusual order agreeing to review the district court's class certification order right away, possibly before the upcoming trial (and may have issued an order to delay the trial). And even if the Ninth Circuit agreed with us and affirmed the district court's rulings regarding class certification and arbitration, Uber made clear it would try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been quite friendly in recent years to companies using arbitration agreements to prevent individuals from banding together to hold
companies accountable to complying with the laws on a classwide basis.

Thus, if we had not settled, there were some serious risks that all we have fought for - and have achieved - could be taken away. We balanced this risk in deciding what would be a fair resolution of this case.

It is our hope and belief that this agreement - a historic agreement - and one of the largest ever achieved on behalf of workers claiming independent contractor misclassification - will provide
significant benefits to drivers, both monetary and non-monetary, that will improve their work lives, will increase their income through providing clarity to passengers regarding Uber's tipping policies, and will foster a constructive dialogue between drivers and Uber regarding issues of concern to drivers, so as to improve the work lives of the drivers and improve how the company operates with greater input from the drivers themselves who are the backbone of the company.

Moreover, the payments drivers will receive under this settlement are significant. We have calculated the estimated distribution for drivers who have driven different amounts of miles with Uber passengers in the car. Drivers falling into the category of those who have driven the greatest number of miles (more than 25,000) may receive $8,000 or more on average (if they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause, and if the claim rate for the settlement is what is expected, approximately half). Drivers who drove fewer miles will receive lower shares. The formula accounts also for whether the drivers worked in California or Massachusetts (more of the settlement is allocated for California), whether they were included in the certified class (those who were will receive double credit for their miles), and whether they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause (those who did will also receive double credit).

We are very proud of this achievement and look forward to these changes being implemented for the benefit of Uber drivers.

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Adelaide Pagano


----------



## SD_Expedition

I didn't receive this Liss-Riordan information, was this an email?


----------



## chi1cabby

SD_Expedition said:


> I didn't receive this Liss-Riordan information, was this an email?


The statement from Shannon Liss-Riordan was Twitter direct messaged to me by another driver who is involved in the Lawsuit.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Ok thank you. I haven't received any email in months. Wasn't sure the status of this.


----------



## Argantes

So how much can we estimate to get? someone who works 20+k miles. I opted out of the arbitration agreement but did not sign contract with S. Riordan, though I did advise her (was too lazy to fill out paperwork)


----------



## chi1cabby

*Growing and growing up*
April 21, 2016
Posted by Travis
Today we announced a settlement in two important class-action lawsuits: _O'Connor_(California) and _Yucesoy_(Massachusetts). The key issue at stake in both cases is whether drivers using the Uber app should be classified as independent contractors or employees.

As part of this settlement, which covers all classification claims involving Uber in California and Massachusetts, the two sides have agreed that:


Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees;
Uber will pay $84 million to the plaintiffs. There will be a second payment of $16 million if Uber goes public and our valuation increases one and a half times from our December 2015 financing valuation within the first year of an IPO;
Uber will provide drivers with more information about their individual rating and how it compares with their peers. Uber will also introduce a policy explaining the circumstances under which we deactivate drivers in these states from using the app; and
We will work together to create a driver's association in both states. Uber will help fund these two associations and meet them quarterly to discuss the issues that matter most to drivers.
Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Today, while the number of drivers using our app has grown dramatically, their reasons for doing so haven't changed. In the U.S. almost 90 percent say they choose Uber because they want to be their own boss. Drivers value their independence-the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours.

That's why we are so pleased that this settlement recognizes that drivers should remain as independent contractors, not employees. As one driver told the court: _"I've been an employee and an employer, and I've also been an independent contractor. I know the difference between these things. With Uber, I'm an independent contractor. And I wouldn't have it any other way."_ As another said: _"I wouldn't even want to be an Uber employee. I would quit if they tried to make me an employee, because I value my freedom as an independent contractor too much."_

That said, as Uber has grown-over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S.-we haven't always done a good job working with drivers. For example, we don't have a policy explaining when and how we bar drivers from using the app, or a process to appeal these decisions. At our size that's not good enough. It's time to change.

So today we've published a driver deactivation policy for the first time. It will apply across the United States, and our goal is to roll out similar policies globally over time. You can read it in English, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic, 
with more languages to follow.

It's incredibly important that when people use Uber, they have a great experience-one that is safe, reliable, convenient and a good value. Otherwise, fewer passengers will use the app over time, which is bad for everyone. The policy explains why drivers are deactivated, the warnings we give and the circumstances in which drivers can use the app again.

Sometimes it's clear that a driver shouldn't be allowed on our platform: we permanently deactivate drivers who are violent, drink and drive, or refuse someone a ride because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation (it happens, sadly). But what if a driver's rating declines due to poor driving or a smelly car? (And it's not just bad smells that cause problems-we do get complaints about too much Febreze.) In those cases we let the driver know that there's an issue and, if things don't improve, we deactivate their account. We're also working with a number of companies to provide affordable quality improvement courses.

As part of this settlement, Uber has agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline trips when they are logged into the app. If too many drivers decline the rides we send their way, it undermines the reliability of the service for riders. But we understand that drivers need breaks, and sometimes things come up-maybe a kid has gotten sick at school. When drivers aren't available, we'd just ask they turn off the app. And where drivers do have low acceptance rates-perhaps because they are multitasking at home-we will alert them to the issue. If things don't pick up, we may log them out of the app for a limited period of time.

Uber has become an important part of many drivers' lives, whether they drive all week or for a couple of hours to help pay the bills. So we've agreed to create an appeals process in California and Massachusetts for drivers who disagree with these decisions. In fact, we've been working on a pilot in Seattle for the last few months, which includes having other drivers hear these appeals. Our hope is that this kind of peer review process will improve transparency and accountability and give drivers an additional voice. If this approach is successful, we'll look at rolling it out across the U.S.

Uber is a new way of working: it's about people having the freedom to start and stop work when they want, at the push of a button. As we've grown we've gotten a lot right-but certainly not everything. This new deactivation policy is an important step forward when it comes to working with drivers. But there's more to do, which is why I'm excited about some other improvements we have planned for the not too distant future. Stay tuned.

Travis Kalanick
CEO and Co-Founder


----------



## SD_Expedition

It's still a game they are masters of. If Uber is penalizing drivers for not accepting fares, they are treating them as employees. It is contracted work, and as an I.C., you are not obligated to accept any contract period. Can't have it both ways Uber. IMO


----------



## JimS

Slavic Riga said:


> The picture on the caption is a perfect example of how everybody views us Drivers/Partners/IC's.
> *"Sheep being led to the slaughter house".*


Though mutton and lamb is certainly available in the meat market, most sheep are typically sheared to a point of looking really ridiculous. Not to mention, they are some of the dumbest animals alive.

So, yes, the pic is totally appropriate.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Uber just played the drivers. 100 million is pennies to travis and he knows the greedy lawyers will convince the drivers to take it. It's a huge pay day for the lawyers not so much for the drivers. This goes to show that uber can do whatever it likes. 'he who has the cash has the power'


----------



## SD_Expedition

So what mileage are they going to use to account for the settlement checks? What Uber documented or the actual recorded total milaege. I have records of the actual, and what Uber sent me was 1/3 of it.


----------



## kakauber

Why would a lawyer receive $ 10...$ 20.....$30 millions in compensation when this SOB never drove and never dealt with Pax???? What kinda justice is this????. This is all bs!!!.


----------



## SD_Expedition

They filed some papers and showed up to hearings. It's worth a few million. I'm more interested to see what the settlement check is if the terms are accepted by the judge.


----------



## riChElwAy

<<...who will be able to bring drivers' concerns to Uber management, who will engage in good faith discussions>>

one word... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Another sad case of Drivers getting screwed AGAIN, but I highly doubt even this will affect the number of drivers who will turn that key, sign into that app, and get back on the road. 

YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS UBER PEOPLE!!!

If you're ready to quit now, raise your hand......


----------



## LondonONTdriver

This is a sad day for us poor drivers. Business as usual, nothing will really change.

Riots, rope, and trees will be the only solution in the end. Does Travis have any large trees outside his mansion?


----------



## SD_Expedition

I haven't driven since January, so I am one of those that didn't fold to the rate cut and continued to drive. I've stood my ground.


----------



## Teksaz

Just another dog and pony show that basically did nothing for the drivers.


----------



## BurgerTiime

As an independent contractor a second party cannot determine the price for all independent contractors. That's price fixing. NEXT LAWSUIT!!


----------



## SD_Expedition

BurgerTiime said:


> As an independent contractor a second party cannot determine the price for all independent contractors. That's price fixing. NEXT LAWSUIT!!


It's already in the works, a least I read about it somewhere.


----------



## HiFareLoRate

Judge Chen is "math-tised".
Guarantee won't allow it. 

He's not your typical judge.


----------



## Drive777

A lot of the language in the settlement was directed only at drivers in two states (CA and MA) but that puts drivers in other states at a disadvantage for having suffered the same injuries.

What incentive does Uber have to pay or do anything for drivers outside of the original class?


----------



## JHawk

Drive777 said:


> A lot of the language in the settlement was directed only at drivers in two states (CA and MA) but that puts drivers in other states at a disadvantage for having suffered the same injuries.
> 
> What incentive does Uber have to pay or do anything for drivers outside of the original class?


That's what I'm wondering....with my skepticism of Uber being so incredibly high....it's very easy to read between the lines in a lot of the statements and leave a lot of wiggle room for individual Uber GM's of markets outside of Mass and Ca to still punt drivers off the system at will. The new published policy says, to the effect of "drivers can be temporarily deactivated for low acceptance rates" but nowhere does it specifically say "drivers will no longer be permanently de-activated for refusing to accept ride requests" I realize this is splitting hairs to a degree...but given Uber's infatuation with vaguely worded double-talk which is used to their advantage, I think it's warranted. I'd love to see a statement from the local management, but doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## elelegido

Darrell said:


> Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver.


Very true, but when don't they.


----------



## Txchick

Darrell said:


> Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver. The lawyers will get millions, the drivers will get enough to spend in 1 week and slowly start getting deactivated by Uber for various reasons but really it's retaliation and they want get Unemployment. Uber just made a fool of the drivers.


Totally agree with that statement!


----------



## Manotas

Bart McCoy said:


> Now I need a lawsuit in my state so I can get some money


Forget the lawsuits.... Only the lawyers make money. If you want to hurt Uber, stop driving for them.


----------



## elelegido

Constitution Defender said:


> Dear Uber Drivers,
> 
> I have my doubts about the class action settlement as it is attempting to settle the class action law suit WITHOUT giving Uber drivers employee status or employee benefits and will likely bind those who are plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit to the settlement and forever prevent them from obtaining employee benefits in the future no matter what happens in the future as to Uber drivers who are not plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.
> 
> Initially it appears that Uber was trying to limit the number of plaintiff class members. Now it appears Uber may be trying to expand the number of class members in order to force the settlement on them and forever keep them from obtaining employee status/benefits.
> 
> My opinion is that Uber drivers should opt out of the class action lawsuits if possible because in my opinion they usually benefit the lawyers for the plaintiffs and also benefit the company that was sued by giving very little to the plaintiffs who sued them and seeking to prevent as many future individual law suits against the company as possible and do very little for the plaintiffs whom they are supposed to help.
> 
> If it is too late to opt out, my opinion is that Uber drivers should object to the proposed settlement and insist that the issue of whether or not Uber drivers are in fact employees entitled to employee benefits should be litigated and decided in the class action lawsuit.
> 
> Rather than being part of a class action lawsuit where plaintiffs have very little individual control over decisions that are made, I think Uber drivers who feel they should have employee status/benefits should opt out of class action lawsuits and file individual lawsuits where they will have complete control over the decisions made on their behalf to obtain those benefits.
> 
> Employee benefits can be important and substantial leading to greater pay, less tax payments, social security credits, and numerous other benefits, including not paying for your own gas as an Uber driver.
> 
> An Uber driver named Barbara Berwick already proved she was an Uber employee in the case of Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc., case number 11-43769 EK, when the California Labor Commissioner ruled in her favor finding, based on facts common to all Uber drivers, that she was in fact an employee, not an independent contractor. The California Labor Commissioner ordered Uber to pay Berwick the benefits of an employee.
> 
> If the Berwick case had been filed in Superior Court it could have potentially been res judicata in favor of supporting that all individual Uber drivers who filed cases in Superior Court later could use the Berwick ruling to automatically establish the fact that they are employees of Uber with the only thing left to determine is what past and future money Uber would have to pay them since they have not been paying them as employees in the past and have therefore under paid them.
> 
> In California the terminology selected by the parties, "independent contractor" vs. "employee" is not determinative of the actual status. The actual determination of whether or not one is an employee or and independent contractor is based on a list of factors and if more factors support that one is an employee then the person is an employee regardless of whether the employer has been calling them an independent contractor.
> 
> So if the class action lawsuits were filed to establish that Uber drivers are employees entitled to employee benefits, then why is it now being settled without resolving that issue and potentially preventing plaintiff class members from ever taking action to prove they are employees in the future.
> 
> If you would like a free consultation to discuss any of your concerns related to these issues please feel free to contact me.
> 
> Would you like to receive employee benefits from Uber?
> 
> Take action, contact attorney Richard Sullivan now.
> 
> Richard Sullivan, Lawyer
> 219 South Barrington Avenue
> Los Angeles, CA 90049
> 
> Tel. (310) 926-5413
> 
> This is an advertisement for the Law Offices of Richard J. Sullivan


Interesting points, but I would think the majority here have had rather enough of lawyers right now.


----------



## uberlift

undermensch - you can do what I did- opt out, then hire a lawyer to represent you for arbitration for around a third of the winnings (no fee if you lose)


----------



## JimS

Better call Saul.


----------



## Slavic Riga

JHawk said:


> That's what I'm wondering....with my skepticism of Uber being so incredibly high....it's very easy to read between the lines in a lot of the statements and leave a lot of wiggle room for individual Uber GM's of markets outside of Mass and Ca to still punt drivers off the system at will. The new published policy says, to the effect of "drivers can be temporarily deactivated for low acceptance rates" but nowhere does it specifically say "drivers will no longer be permanently de-activated for refusing to accept ride requests" I realize this is splitting hairs to a degree...but given Uber's infatuation with vaguely worded double-talk which is used to their advantage, I think it's warranted. I'd love to see a statement from the local management, but doubt that will ever happen.


Uber controls the app & its functions. How are drivers to know that we have not accepted a ride/ping, when the app defaults & shows us that the rider has cancelled even when there was no incoming ping. 
*Point to be noted. My car is not even in motion.* 
Happened to me a few times. Driver App shows pax cancelled ride when I did not even accept the ping & this happens constantly & when drivers complain. Uber third world CSR's sent you an animated reply stating 1) Check with your service provider & 2) Shut & reboot your phone & 3) Home city operations send you a nasty text. 
Have to get a clear understanding of "Low acceptance rates" & cut the double talk/meanings.


----------



## LADriver

Cou-ber said:


> So each gets roughly $240. Retirement!


After going through two class action lawsuits against limo companies in California, it's a well known fact that the lawyers get 33% upfront from any settlement amount before the plaintiffs see any cash. Let's see, lawyers will receive $33 million, check. Balance of $67 million divided by 385,000 drivers equals $174 each!. Double retirement! For you and your kids!


----------



## Slavic Riga

Constitution Defender said:


> Dear Uber Drivers,
> Take action, contact attorney Richard Sullivan now.
> 
> Richard Sullivan, Lawyer
> 219 South Barrington Avenue
> Los Angeles, CA 90049
> Tel. (310) 926-5413
> This is an advertisement for the Law Offices of Richard J. Sullivan


I'm not sure if it is a good strategy to get one lawyer go against another lawyer as, both are/will be representing plaintiffs..
Who pays Richard Sullivan.
Is he willing to represent the current plaintiffs for 20 percent of the prize money or how does the firm get paid. OR
*is everybody looking for a piece of the pie.*


----------



## LADriver

uberdriverfornow said:


> What an absolute joke of a settlement. This is the same joke of a settlement the judge already unapproved for Lyft.
> 
> We basically get nothing. $200 on average to each driver ??? What the hell is that ? We still aren't classified as employees so that means that any ongoing costs that Uber should be paying won't be paid to us for reimbursements that we CONTINUE to acrue and Uber still doesn't have to add a tip option.
> 
> What kind of idiot lawyer would allow this to proceed ? I thought that Riordian woman was supposed to be the best in the business. She's a joke! I wonder how much Uber and Lyft is paying to her secret Cayman Island's bank account to try to force these joke of settlements on us ???
> 
> The lawyers get millions and don't even have to force a trial ! Eff that !!


I feel your pain. I'm extremely disappointed in SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for even going in the settlement direction. Her background boasted of getting employee status for the Fed-Ex Ground employees that were misclassified. I thought she was a fighter for us UBER slaves. But, NOOOOOOOO!!!

She stated in other news reports that she feared losing the case to a San Francisco Jury! Are you kidding me? So what! If she lost the case, we'd still be in the same stinking boat we're in now. This would have been an epic jury trial. With a legal resolution to the Gig Economy workers' status, not just UBER drivers.

This settlement is not only a joke, it is a FARCE! The lawyers walk away with 33% of the settlement, while each driver/slave receives $174. I think Judge Chen should start throwing the "B" word around when it comes to ride-sharing settlements, as in $1 Billion.

I'm so pissed right now I can't see straight. So, I won't be able to drive tomorrow. Thanks SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for costing me a day of work!


----------



## SD_Expedition

LADriver said:


> After going through two class action lawsuits against limo companies in California, it's a well known fact that the lawyers get 33% upfront from any settlement amount before the plaintiffs see any cash. Let's see, lawyers will receive $33 million, check. Balance of $67 million divided by 385,000 drivers equals $174 each!. Double retirement! For you and your kids!


I am trying to figure out how they are going to stretch out $86 Million and pay some drivers $8k?

"Moreover, the payments drivers will receive under this settlement are significant. We have calculated the estimated distribution for drivers who have driven different amounts of miles with Uber passengers in the car. Drivers falling into the category of those who have driven the greatest number of miles (more than 25,000) may receive $8,000 or more on average (if they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause, and if the claim rate for the settlement is what is expected, approximately half). Drivers who drove fewer miles will receive lower shares. The formula accounts also for whether the drivers worked in California or Massachusetts (more of the settlement is allocated for California), whether they were included in the certified class (those who were will receive double credit for their miles), and whether they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause (those who did will also receive double credit)."


----------



## LA Dispatcher

This is actually good news since this might clear things up for potential competitors. More competition means more investor money being thrown around loosely.


----------



## Lost In Translation

*SELL OUT SHANNON*.

I wrote her to tell her she sold the drivers down the river for money. Travis & Uber can get to any politician and any lawyer and buy them off. She couldn't even get tipping added to the application. Shannon will make millions and never have to work another day in her life, while the rest of us got screwed.

_Write to this witch at __[email protected]_ and tell her what you think of her selling us out for personal gain. We had a great case. Why settle two months before the trial? Travis played her like a violin.

How can we start a letter writing campaign to Judge Chan to protest the settlement amount and at least get us a billion dollars. The rest of our case is a lost cause.


----------



## KMANDERSON

Bob Reynolds said:


> This is a sell out and a sad day for the drivers that are not even making the minimum wage. Lawyers are basically taking millions of dollars in fees and running while the drivers get less than $300.
> 
> Let's hope Judge Chen will see through this sham and not approve it.


Did you really think this was for the drivers.The law firm suing uber was in it for there payday.Nobody give a damn about making things better for the drivers.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Bart McCoy said:


> Now I need a lawsuit in my state so I can get some money


Make sure that you are one of the lead plaintiffs. The lawyers will take most of it, they always do. The lead plaintiffs get a little bit. The rest of the class members receive a voucher for a buy one get one free at Little Caesar's.



Cou-ber said:


> So each gets roughly $240. Retirement!


You forgot that the lawyers must add all of their "expenses" to their take. What happens in these things, as a rule, is that the lawyers get almost all of it, the lead plaintiffs get a little bit and all of the other class members get a voucher for a free fries and shake when you buy a hamburger at Sonic.



Darrell said:


> Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver. The lawyers will get millions, the drivers will get enough to spend in 1 week


The lawyers always look out for the lawyers and for the lawyers, only. You are being optimistic about "enough to spend in one week".......wait, maybe not.......I suppose that you can spend a voucher good for a free foot long when you buy a six inch at Subway in less than one week.



Bob Reynolds said:


> Lawyers are basically taking millions of dollars in fees and running while the drivers get less than $300.


The lead plaintiffs will receive a little bit. As for the other class members, you are correct, a voucher good for a buy one get one free at Little Caesar's is less than three-hundred dollars.



Undermensch said:


> a bigger settlement, of which the lawyers get 95% of the money Drivers will see maybe $3.20 from this, each.


A voucher good for a free large fries and large Coca-Cola when you buy one Roy Rogers sandwich is worth about three dollars and twenty cents. Congratulations, you have named the figure closest to what the class members actually will receive.



kakauber said:


> Why would a lawyer receive $ 10...$ 20.....$30 millions in compensation when this SOB never drove and never dealt with Pax???? What kinda justice is this????. This is all bs!!!.


This is typical of these things.

There are worse, though: the TV lawyers. They call themselves "trial lawyers" when the last thing that they want to do is go to trial. You spend all of the time at the treatment mill with your fake injuries, the lawyer makes a few telephone calls. You get next to nothing, the treatment mill gets a little bit, the lawyer gets almost all of it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ubersuperbowlstrike said:


> Damn 100 milli for just 2 States wouldn't smart lawyers now start a similar suit in the other 48?


Uber will head it off by using this as a model for nationwide policy.


----------



## SD_Expedition




----------



## Another Uber Driver

^^^^^^You forgot the "BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA"


----------



## SD_Expedition

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^You forgot the "BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA"


I figured I'd let it truly speak for itself.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Teksaz said:


> Just another dog and pony show that basically did nothing for the drivers.


Nothing? NOTHING at all? I'm reading more than nothing



LADriver said:


> I feel your pain. I'm extremely disappointed in SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for even going in the settlement direction. Her background boasted of getting employee status for the Fed-Ex Ground employees that were miss-classified.


So you wanted to become an employee of Uber? exactly what type of outcome did you want from this lawsuit?



Lost In Translation said:


> *SELL OUT SHANNON*.
> 
> I wrote her to tell her she sold the drivers down the river for money.
> How can we start a letter writing campaign to Judge Chan to protest the settlement amount and at least get us a billion dollars.


So you say shannon is a sellout for money, but then you turn around and say you want billions of money for the drivers?? Seems yall both want money



ubersuperbowlstrike said:


> Damn 100 milli for just 2 States wouldn't smart lawyers now start a similar suit in the other 48?


THIS
Why should it stop in 2 states? clearly every state had this same employee/contractor issue
Give me my money!


----------



## berserk42

Darrell said:


> Sounds like the lawyers where looking out for their best interest and not that of the driver. The lawyers will get millions, the drivers will get enough to spend in 1 week and slowly start getting deactivated by Uber for various reasons but really it's retaliation and they want get Unemployment. Uber just made a fool of the drivers.


Truth. Every class action settlement ever, really.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

Bart McCoy said:


> So you wanted to become an employee of Uber? exactly what type of outcome did you want from this lawsuit?


Most of these drivers don't know what they want. They hate Uber so much that they sometimes root against their own interest.


----------



## chi1cabby

It's important to keep in mind that the #UberLAWSUIT settlement, if approved, would only be applicable in states of California & Massachusetts. There are about a dozen other states where lawsuits have been filed over Employee Misclassification & Tips:

Ohio
New York
San Antonio,Texas
Houston, Texas
Pennsylvania
Washington State
Michigan
Illinois
Maryland
Arizona
Florida
*List of Class action lawsuits filed against Uber by drivers*


----------



## Another Uber Driver

chi1cabby said:


> It's important to keep in mind that the #UberLAWSUIT settlement, if approved, would only be applicable in states of California & Massachusetts.


I do not disagree with you, chi1cabby, but, do keep in mind that more than one corporation has used similar settlements as models for nationwide policy. This accomplishes two things, both of which apply in Uber's situation.

1. It will head off any future suits based on similar facts, occurrences, policies and principles.

2. It will provide impetus for plaintiffs in still outstanding complaints to come to settlement based on the terms of an existing settlement, thus making complaints go away.

I suspect that things such as tip jars/signs and cancellation/acceptance policies and other items in these settlements will become national policy for Uber.

In fact, back in the days when the auto worker and railroad unions were more powerful, often they would target one automobile manufacturer or railroad. There would be a strike, there would also be sympathy strikes, an agreement would be reached and ratified by the appropriate rank and file. The union bosses would then take that agreement to the other automobile builders or railroads and demand that each one accept that or face a strike. As often, the targeted builder or railroad kept in touch with its colleagues, the management of the other builders and railroads knew what to expect and usually agreed quickly.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Poll added.
*
Please cast your vote.
Thanx!


----------



## Another Uber Driver

I voted "no effect". There were several reasons. The major reason is that what was not gained offsets what was. One major change that should have happened was that Uber should be required to educate its users on how it applies/administers/interprets its Star System. We have had posted, on this Forum, inside information that Uber does not want to educate its users on this. This needs to change.


----------



## Dan_Adams86

Hey everyone, I'm a business reporter at the Boston Globe who's working on a story about the settlement. I want to make sure we include the voices of drivers in our piece, so our readers hear the full story. Any drivers from Massachusetts on here have a minute to chat? Shoot me a PM (the forum won't let me post my email or any links, but it's in my twitter profile: dan_adams86.) I'd be really grateful for your time and wisdom. Thanks!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> That's why I was saying earlier that I regret opting out of binding arbitration and the reasons I regret it are:
> 
> 
> I'm never going to sue Uber for anything - Face it, it's not gonna happen
> All that opting out does is allow some jackass lawyer, who I'm never going to meet, to file a suit and include me in the class of plaintiffs that allows them to collect a bigger settlement, of which the lawyers get 95% of the money
> Thanks, but no thanks. Drivers will see maybe $3.20 from this, each.


???
That's incorrect.
Opting out of the binding arbitration agreement only preserves your right to sue individually - and participate in a class action if you so choose. It does not mean that you must participate in a class action. Failing to opt-out can only limit your options.


----------



## Uberdancer

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> I want to vomit. This has got to be a joke.


Make sure you puke in your own car and have Uber pay for it ...


----------



## Dback2004

While I'm not entirely convinced employee status is a good thing (I'm part time, small midwest city) I think the overall settlement is a joke. The lawyers are going to eat up most of the monetary settlement and Uber really didn't give in on many points. 

I'm anxious to see what are contained in these new "deactivation policies" or if it's more fluff that doesn't really say anything. 
They've already said that while they won't deactivate for ping acceptance rates they'll still boot you off for a while. It's their way of controlling drivers who are smart enough not to drive half an hour across town for a $2.40 minimum fare with no return ride in the name of "customer/rider satisfaction."
The "drivers association" and "driver review boards" are also likely to be a joke as I'm sure Uber will have strong-arm input over who are on these and will control the decisions. 
Also, no in-app tipping? Seriously!? Making a public statement about tipping or allowing drivers to put up a sign isn'g going to significantly help. Today's society and a lot of Uber's riders simply don't carry cash anymore. And while Square may be an option, it's not entirely convenient. In-app tipping is the only way for drivers to get what they've earned, and even better if there is a default X% (pick your number) default that the rider has to elect to change!


----------



## KMANDERSON

If they really cared about the drivers they would have addressed the per mile rate on the settlement with uber.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> What an absolute joke of a settlement. This is the same joke of a settlement the judge already unapproved for Lyft.
> 
> We basically get nothing. $200 on average to each driver ??? What the hell is that ? We still aren't classified as employees so that means that any ongoing costs that Uber should be paying won't be paid to us for reimbursements that we CONTINUE to acrue and Uber still doesn't have to add a tip option.
> 
> What kind of idiot lawyer would allow this to proceed ? I thought that Riordian woman was supposed to be the best in the business. She's a joke! I wonder how much Uber and Lyft is paying to her secret Cayman Island's bank account to try to force these joke of settlements on us ???
> 
> The lawyers get millions and don't even have to force a trial ! Eff that !!


Hey buddy, pretty ironic. We were just talking about this 28 hours ago. You want to repost what you said.


----------



## Boricuafudd

With all due respect to everyone who feels differently, but we do not work for Uber. I repeat we do not work for Uber. There are plenty of car services that need drivers for those who want that type of job "security". 

That "security" comes at a cost, which is why many who were driving for car services are now Ubering. We are small business owners (independent contractor) as such, and like all small business owners, we have expenses that are part of doing the business, that are our responsibility. Like all business owners, there are times when profits are nonexistent. It is up to us to decide whether to close shop or continue to operate.

This is not to say that there are things that Uber can do to make things better or that we do not need a better voice on issues, they can and we do. However, Uber is not my boss, they are the middleman that connects me to my customers and only that. 

If we want to fix the problems with Uber and their control over our business, that should be the starting point. Turning Uber into an employer is not the solution and it distracts from what the real issues is.


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> ???
> That's incorrect.
> Opting out of the binding arbitration agreement only preserves your right to sue individually - and participate in a class action if you so choose. It does not mean that you must participate in a class action. Failing to opt-out can only limit your options.


Wrong!

By default, you are included in the class and in the damages assigned as a result of a win or settlement for that class.

Lawyers that you've never spoken to can use you as a statistic to increase the size of that class. Only if you opt out of their class can you stop them from doing that.

You might be claiming that the perfect citizen, who spends all day paying attention to which classes someone wants to involve them in, could handle this correctly. That's probably right. But no one wants to spend their time looking for classes that they might be included in. Nobody does that with their free time. So the default of "included in the class" becomes the final decision for 99% of people.


----------



## Lost In Translation

Bart McCoy said:


> So you say shannon is a sellout for money, but then you turn around and say you want billions of money for the drivers?? Seems yall both want money


No, I want my expenses covered. If I can't get my expenses covered for the past and into the future, then I want as much of my past expenses covered in any settlement. Lis-Riordan gets over $30 MILLION. Don't believe for a second that drivers will be getting thousands. Driver won't get enough to buy a set of tires.


----------



## Undermensch

Lost In Translation said:


> No, I want my expenses covered. If I can't get my expenses covered for the past and into the future, then I want as much of my past expenses covered in any settlement. Lis-Riordan gets over $30 MILLION. Don't believe for a second that drivers will be getting thousands. Driver won't get enough to buy a set of tires.


Most won't get enough for a set of toothbrushes


----------



## Lost In Translation

Boricuafudd said:


> With all due respect to everyone who feels differently, but we do not work for Uber. I repeat we do not work for Uber. There are plenty of car services that need drivers for those who want that type of job "security".
> 
> That "security" comes at a cost, which is why many who were driving for car services are now Ubering. We are small business owners (independent contractor) as such, and like all small business owners, we have expenses that are part of doing the business, that are our responsibility. Like all business owners, there are times when profits are nonexistent. It is up to us to decide whether to close shop or continue to operate.
> 
> This is not to say that there are things that Uber can do to make things better or that we do not need a better voice on issues, they can and we do. However, Uber is not my boss, they are the middleman that connects me to my customers and only that.
> 
> If we want to fix the problems with Uber and their control over our business, that should be the starting point. Turning Uber into an employer is not the solution and it distracts from what the real issues is.


You are NOT an independent contractor if you cannot set your own rates. That fact alone means if Uber is setting the rate you are working for Uber, not yourself.

If you are an independent contractor you get to see upfront what you are agreeing to do. Meaning you see both the pickup and the destination and ONLY THEN do you decide if you choose to accept the work.


----------



## Undermensch

Lost In Translation said:


> You are NOT an independent contractor if you cannot set your own rates. That fact alone means if Uber is setting the rate you are working for Uber, not yourself.
> 
> If you are an independent contractor you get to see upfront what you are agreeing to do. Meaning you see both the pickup and the destination and ONLY THEN do you decide if you choose to accept the work.


Wrong.

As a TNC driver you have these options:


Lyft - Say, $1.5/mile
UberX - Say, $1.25/mile
Get Limo plates, commercial license, and commercial insurance - Set your own rate at $25/mile and get no rides or settle somewhere between $1/mile and $4/mile and get some rides
You have *chosen* to take Uber's rate. They didn't force you to take that rate.

Don't like it? End your cooperative agreement with Uber and explore other options.

Just because you're working with a company that brings you business doesn't mean you get the ability to set *their* rate to the customers.

Now, with all that being said, it would be nice if Uber would allow us to say "I'm online but I don't roll for less than $2/mile, I don't roll for less than $15 take home total, and I only go 5 mins empty unless the rider accepts to pay for me to drive to them even if they cancel". That would be fantastic. But there is nothing about the contract vs employee situation that requires that they offer that since you are in a free market and able to chose among options other than Uber already.


----------



## Darrell

kakauber said:


> Why would a lawyer receive $ 10...$ 20.....$30 millions in compensation when this SOB never drove and never dealt with Pax???? What kinda justice is this????. This is all bs!!!.


Then they SETTLED securing their cut and leaving the drivers with the crumbs.


----------



## UberMensch2015

I never expected to get money out of these suits. All I want is pretty much what I think we will get to some degree:

Ability to reject rides when I want with no repercussions. I don't drive X on non-surge. Uber Houston won't let me have a select only profile so I'll be happy to just reject all X rides that aren't surging. If they still enforce a time-out or some deactivation then this was nothing for me.

I'll drive X on non-surge if they raise the rates. Otherwise, I'm an IC, screw you Travis.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect

*No/Minimal Effect*;

That Fuzzy math has my head spinning.  and it should be a well known fact that the Lawyers always get 33%+. However, per ubers math I may net $4k. Hope you have enough mileage this year to offset on next years tax return.

I see no change for deactivation, as uber gets to pick which drivers sitting on the board?. Those drivers will have had to drink the Kool-Aid first. Shall I Volunteer ?

ps ; Having a tip sign/jar in any fashion, only serves to show there is NO Class in your person being.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> Wrong!
> 
> By default, you are included in the class and in the damages assigned as a result of a win or settlement for that class.
> 
> Lawyers that you've never spoken to can use you as a statistic to increase the size of that class. Only if you opt out of their class can you stop them from doing that.
> 
> You might be claiming that the perfect citizen, who spends all day paying attention to which classes someone wants to involve them in, could handle this correctly. That's probably right. But no one wants to spend their time looking for classes that they might be included in. Nobody does that with their free time. So the default of "included in the class" becomes the final decision for 99% of people.


I'm afraid you are wrong - you always have the option of opting-out of a class-action. In this particular case, the judge threw out the binding arbitration clause of the driver agreement, finding it 'onerous'. If he had upheld the clause, then only drivers who had opted out would have been able to participate.

*If you do not opt-out of the bringing arbitration clause of the Uber US driver agreement then you may not be able to choose to participate in any class action - and you will not have the ability to bring an individual claim against Uber in court. *
Please stop misleading people about this.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberMensch2015 said:


> I never expected to get money out of these suits. All I want is pretty much what I think we will get to some degree:
> 
> Ability to reject rides when I want with no repercussions. I don't drive X on non-surge. Uber Houston won't let me have a select only profile so I'll be happy to just reject all X rides that aren't surging. If they still enforce a time-out or some deactivation then this was nothing for me.
> 
> I'll drive X on non-surge if they raise the rates. Otherwise, I'm an IC, screw you Travis.


*from Uber's now published US policy:*

*On Acceptance Rates:*
High acceptance rates are a critical part of reliable, high-quality service, but *not accepting trip requests does not lead to permanent deactivation*.

Consistently accepting trip requests helps maximize earnings for drivers and keeps the system running smoothly. We know that sometimes things come up that prevent you from accepting every trip request, but not accepting dispatches causes delays and degrades the reliability of the system.

If you are consistently not accepting trip requests, we will notify you that your ability to remain online may be at risk. If your acceptance rate does not improve, you may temporarily be logged out of the app for a limited period of time.​


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Very well put. When Uber first came to the Valley back in 2012 all my drivers joined Uber back then. It was only Uber Black @ $5.00 a mile. Money was really good, but I saw more then just the money. I saw the customer base loving the ease and convenience of an on demand transportation company. So in turn I hired a professional team to enhance our website for on demand airport pick up and drop offs. In the past 3 years this part of our business has grown over 600%. Bottom line is, either grow with the changes or let the changes grow past you. Ride share is killing the "fare for hire" business.


----------



## Uberdancer

Lost In Translation said:


> You are NOT an independent contractor if you cannot set your own rates. That fact alone means if Uber is setting the rate you are working for Uber, not yourself.
> 
> If you are an independent contractor you get to see upfront what you are agreeing to do. Meaning you see both the pickup and the destination and ONLY THEN do you decide if you choose to accept the work.


But you are, Blanche, you are. You can set your own "rates" by opting to be offline if there is no surge, if you want the surge, or not ... You can opt for the "Power Driver thingy" bonus if you want, or not ... You can opt to drive to San Francisco or stay in Silicon Valley, or not ...

If you're not having fun, you shouldn't play ... it's contagious ... and your riders will equally not have fun ... it's social Darwinism ...

And when the rider approaches and you begin the trip, and you realize the destination is not worth driving to, or the destination is too far, you can politely or rudely, decline the rider and tell them, not ask them, tell them tersely that their ridership and destination is beneath your dignity, and that they have to call another driver ...

Clearly, you have that option ... no one is holding a gun to your head, as it were...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> Wrong.
> 
> As a TNC driver you have these options:
> 
> 
> Lyft - Say, $1.5/mile
> UberX - Say, $1.25/mile
> Get Limo plates, commercial license, and commercial insurance - Set your own rate at $25/mile and get no rides or settle somewhere between $1/mile and $4/mile and get some rides
> You have *chosen* to take Uber's rate. They didn't force you to take that rate.
> 
> Don't like it? End your cooperative agreement with Uber and explore other options.
> 
> Just because you're working with a company that brings you business doesn't mean you get the ability to set *their* rate to the customers.
> 
> Now, with all that being said, it would be nice if Uber would allow us to say "I'm online but I don't roll for less than $2/mile, I don't roll for less than $15 take home total, and I only go 5 mins empty unless the rider accepts to pay for me to drive to them even if they cancel". That would be fantastic. But there is nothing about the contract vs employee situation that requires that they offer that since you are in a free market and able to chose among options other than Uber already.


You need to read your Uber driver agreement - which states in black and white that Uber publishes only "DEFAULT" fares and that drivers and riders are free to negotiate fares between them - and that Uber will honor any such fare negotiation made "in good faith"


----------



## ubershiza

Uber pays 100 million and each driver in the suit receives approximately $269. Once again uber is the winner here.


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm afraid you are wrong - you always have the option of opting-out of a class-action. In this particular case, the judge threw out the binding arbitration clause of the driver agreement, finding it 'onerous'. If he had upheld the clause, then only drivers who had opted out would have been able to participate.
> 
> *If you do not opt-out of the bringing arbitration clause of the Uber US driver agreement then you may not be able to choose to participate in any class action - and you will not have the ability to bring an individual claim against Uber in court. *
> Please stop misleading people about this.


"Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases"

Do you really think they have 385,000 "opt me into this class" letters?

They don't and no class ever does. By default you are opted in. You and 3 other people may diligently opt out of classes you've been included in, but almost no one does that and the only people who benefit from this are the class action lawyers that get to include you in their suit by default.


----------



## chi1cabby

Dan_Adams86 said:


> Any drivers from Massachusetts on here have a minute to chat? Shoot me a PM (the forum won't let me post my email or any links, but it's in my twitter profile: dan_adams86.) I'd be really grateful for your time and wisdom. Thanks!





Dan_Adams86 said:


> Hey everyone, I'm a business reporter at the Boston Globe who's working on a story about the settlement. I want to make sure we include the voices of drivers in our piece, so our readers hear the full story.


Dan's email address is:
[email protected]


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

It is absolutely stunning how little people seem to understand about class-action law suits.
The whole purpose of a suit is to seek remedy for bad practices by a company which affect a large number ('class') of people.
Most drivers do not want to be employees.
Drivers want to know what the rules are for deactivation - and they want an appeals process.
Drivers want Uber to stop implying to riders that 'tips are included in the fare'.

In this settlement, Uber has agreed to "grow-up" and address these in a manner that is acceptable to Uber - and hopefully beneficial to drivers. They have agreed to FUND the appeals process for drivers. And they are ponying up at least $84 million in tribute to those in the class.

In my opinion, this is a much bigger 'win' for Uber drivers than anyone is giving credit.

The judge in this case, Judge Chen, however, may decide to focus on the misclassification issue - and flat out refuse to approve the settlement. The Lyft settlement was NOT approved by the court.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA Dispatcher said:


> Most of these drivers don't know what they want. *They hate Uber so much *that they sometimes root against their own interest.


PREACH!!!!



KMANDERSON said:


> If they really cared about the drivers they would have addressed the per mile rate on the settlement with uber.


I don't think any lawsuit can FORCE a company to raise rates? Especially if they "employ" independent contractors?



Uberdancer said:


> But you are, Blanche, you are. You can set your own "rates" by opting to be offline if there is no surge, if you want the surge, or not ... You can opt for the "Power Driver thingy" bonus if you want, or not ... You can opt to drive to San Francisco or stay in Silicon Valley, or not ...
> ...


clearly that is NOT the definition of being able to set your own rates, smh


----------



## TylerSF

Darrell said:


> Nope, the lawyers get their 40 % off the top and the settlement was for 84 million with 16 million coming should Uber go public. That means the lawyers get 33.6 million of that. The drivers then split 50.4 million by 385,000 = $131.


Agreed. Settlement lawsuits pay lawyers. Every time. No one should ever think a class action lawsuit is for anybody but the lawyers. That part is just kabuki theater.


----------



## Uberdancer

So... leave then ... we'll take care of your riders...no need to worry about them...we'll take care of them and get them to places they need to be ... them, their family members, their friends, their colleagues, their acquaintances, their co-workers, their clients ... So you needn't worry about any more rates anymore ...


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You need to read your Uber driver agreement - which states in black and white that Uber publishes only "DEFAULT" fares and that drivers and riders are free to negotiate fares between them - and that Uber will honor any such fare negotiation made "in good faith"


Have you read the agreement?

*Section 4.1 - Financial Terms - Fare Calculation and Your Payment*

"You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is *less* than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is *lower* than the pre-arranged Fare"

Are we really arguing about your desire to enforce the ability to negotiate a *LOWER* fare?

Yes, you have that ability in the driver agreement and that's the only ability they give you (both (i) and (ii) are the same in that they only allow for a lower fare, never a higher fare).

Are we in agreement on that? I see nothing in the document that refers to an ability to negotiate a higher fare.


----------



## Uberdancer

What are we gonna do?? Haggle??? Are we gonna haggle with a rider on a gridlocked downtown shopping financial district street corner curb, for rates??


----------



## LA Dispatcher

Now potential TNC competitors have a driver classification model they can replicate. More competition means a price war to secure drivers. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but this is the most desired outcome.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> "Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases"
> 
> Do you really think they have 385,000 "opt me into this class" letters?
> 
> They don't and no class ever does. By default you are opted in. You and 3 other people may diligently opt out of classes you've been included in, but almost no one does that and the only people who benefit from this are the class action lawyers that get to include you in their suit by default.


Don't back-step: what people CHOOSE to do is their business. That's point - that when you opt-out of the binding arbitration clause you PRESERVE your right to make choices. If you fail to opt-out - then you limit your choices.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Uberdancer said:


> What are we gonna do?? Haggle??? Are we gonna haggle with a rider on a gridlocked downtown shopping financial district street corner curb, for rates??


Yes - for some circumstances I want to be able to haggle:

Taco Bell drive through at 2:15AM during a3x surge
25 Minutes to a pick-up
Wait 15 minutes for the passengers to start the trip
Drive a rider 100 miles to another city where I have to dead-head back


----------



## Undermensch

Uberdancer said:


> What are we gonna do?? Haggle??? Are we gonna haggle with a rider on a gridlocked downtown shopping financial district street corner curb, for rates??


Yes, but it's gonna look like the scene from Life of Brian:

Driver: Haggle properly! This isn't worth $0.85/mile
Rider: You just said it was priceless, so convenient, such a nice car and better than $2/mile taxis!
Driver: Do it!
Rider: I'll give you $0.65/mile
Driver: That's more like it! Are you trying to insult me? $0.65/mile with my starving kids and my misunderstanding of the IRS $0.54/mile deduction???
Rider: Ok, I'll give you $0.75/mile
Driver: Now you're getting it! $0.75/mile? My expenses are $1.25/mile! You want to ruin me?
[skip a bit]
Driver: My final offer is $0.70/mile. I won't take a penny less or strike me dead!
Rider: $0.50/mile
Driver: Done!
Yes, nice rights they gave us in the agreement


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Don't back-step: what people CHOOSE to do is their business. That's point - that when you opt-out of the binding arbitration clause you PRESERVE your right to make choices. If you fail to opt-out - then you limit your choices.


What the heck are you talking about?

I don't like lawyers being able to get rich off of me opting out of binding arbitration.

I know I'm never going to sue Uber. I don't need the option. If something outrageous happens I'm sure I'll do fine in arbitration and it'll cost me less.

Meanwhile, these clown lawyers won't be able to get rich off of me.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> Have you read the agreement?
> 
> *Section 4.1 - Financial Terms - Fare Calculation and Your Payment*
> 
> "You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is *less* than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is *lower* than the pre-arranged Fare"
> 
> Are we really arguing about your desire to enforce the ability to negotiate a *LOWER* fare?
> 
> Yes, you have that ability in the driver agreement and that's the only ability they give you (both (i) and (ii) are the same in that they only allow for a lower fare, never a higher fare).
> 
> Are we in agreement on that? I see nothing in the document that refers to an ability to negotiate a higher fare.


Nope - we're not in agreement - but I've argued (and explained) in other threads why the 'lower' wording is not relevant (because it it has no legal force in the contract language - it's (UberSpeak'). It's off-topic for this thread - but you can look it up (and of course you can disagree).


----------



## Uberdancer

Haggling and tips ... so unmanly ...


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nope - we're not in agreement - but I've argued (and explained) in other threads why the 'lower' wording is not relevant (because it it has no legal force in the contract language - it's (UberSpeak'). It's off-topic for this thread - but you can look it up (and of course you can disagree).


Ha! Talk about back stepping... <snidevoice>Have you read the agreement?!? Huh have you</snidevoice> Then "oh, well, I didn't mean literally read it, I meant, follow me on this, agree 100% with my interpretation of what it means, right? Does that make sense?"

Stop it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> I don't like lawyers being able to get rich off of me opting out of binding arbitration.
> 
> I know I'm never going to sue Uber. I don't need the option. If something outrageous happens I'm sure I'll do fine in arbitration and it'll cost me less.
> 
> Meanwhile, these clown lawyers won't be able to get rich off of me.


Those clown lawyers are the ones who force companies to make products that don't kill people, that force companies to implement procedures and practices that are not draconian, and hold companies responsible for damages to life and property.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> Ha! Talk about back stepping... <snidevoice>Have you read the agreement?!? Huh have you</snidevoice> Then "oh, well, I didn't mean literally read it, I meant, follow me on this, agree 100% with my interpretation of what it means, right? Does that make sense?"
> 
> Stop it.


I damn well did mean it literally and haven't changed one iota of my reasoning.


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Those clown lawyers are the ones who force companies to make products that don't kill people, that force companies to implement procedures and practices that are not draconian, and hold companies responsible for damages to life and property.


I don't agree with that. I think the legislature and prosecutors should deal with almost all of that. We do not have a need for independent lawyers to try to govern companies for us.


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe

See, all you Uber ass kissers that decided not to opt out, cz you wanted flexibility blablabla you get half of what we get... Hahahahaha


----------



## tohunt4me

LADriver said:


> I feel your pain. I'm extremely disappointed in SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for even going in the settlement direction. Her background boasted of getting employee status for the Fed-Ex Ground employees that were miss-classified. I thought she was a fighter for us UBER slaves. But, NOOOOOOOO!!!
> 
> She stated in other news reports that she feared losing the case to a San Francisco Jury! Are you kidding me? So what! If she lost the case, we'd still be in the same stinking boat we're in now. This would have been an epic jury trial. With a legal resolution to the Gig Economy workers' status, not just UBER drivers.
> 
> This settlement is not only a joke, it is a FARCE! The lawyers walk away with 33% of the settlement, while each driver/slave receives $174. I think Judge Chen should start throwing the "B" world around when it comes to ride-sharing settlements, as in $1 Billion.
> 
> I'm so pissed right now I can't see straight. So, I won't be able to drive tomorrow. Thanks SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for costing me a day of work!


----------



## Undermensch

YouWishYouKnewMe said:


> See, all you Uber ass kissers that decided not to opt out, cz you wanted flexibility blablabla you get half of what we get... Hahahahaha


A coupon for a 3" sub at Subway?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> I know I'm never going to sue Uber. I don't need the option.


 Famous last words until you actually need to sue. The point, AGAIN, is that only an idiot would give up the right to sue (or participate in a class action) when they don't have to. Opting-out of the binding arbitration agreement PRESERVES your choices. Failing to opt-out LIMITS your choices.


----------



## tohunt4me

Undermensch said:


> I don't agree with that. I think the legislature and prosecutors should deal with almost all of that. We do not have a need for independent lawyers to try to govern companies for us.


Government
Government legislation gave us air bags that kill.


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe

Undermensch said:


> A coupon for a 3" sub at Subway?


 nope unlike maybe you, I have got tons of miles with Uber.. And I opted out, per the lawyers website, I should be seeing around $8k, it's way less than what the trial would pay, but certainly enough so I can wipe my ass with Uber money for a few weeks and get a satisfaction


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> I don't agree with that. I think the legislature and prosecutors should deal with almost all of that. We do not have a need for independent lawyers to try to govern companies for us.


Ah - you think more legislation is what is needed - because corporate lobbyists always have people's best interest at heart - and no politician or judge or legislator - or city council member can be influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets?


----------



## Undermensch

YouWishYouKnewMe said:


> nope unlike maybe you, I have got tons of miles with Uber.. And I opted out, per the lawyers website, I should be seeing around $8k, it's way less than what the trial would pay, but certainly enough so I can wipe my ass with Uber money for a few weeks and get a satisfaction


Good for you, if you get it!


----------



## DriverX

Seems like the only really positive thing is uber having to set a policy down in writing, but it looks like they have maneuvered a way around it being set in stone by saying that the deactivation triggers are dependent on the city and the other drivers so what kinda moving target is that gonna be?

Also it does say they can't deactivate for acceptance rate anymore so thats a positive, i suppose.


----------



## chi1cabby

Undermensch,

There is absolutely NO REASON why existing Drivers should NOT have & New Drivers should NOT opt-out of the Binding Arbitration Provisions of the Partner Agreement.

*New Partner Agreement, Binding Arbitration Provision, Opting Out & UberLAWSUIT Explained*


----------



## chi1cabby

Undermensch said:


> A coupon for a 3" sub at Subway?





tohunt4me said:


> Government
> Government legislation gave us air bags that kill.


STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC!


----------



## Choochie

LADriver said:


> I feel your pain. I'm extremely disappointed in SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for even going in the settlement direction. Her background boasted of getting employee status for the Fed-Ex Ground employees that were miss-classified. I thought she was a fighter for us UBER slaves. But, NOOOOOOOO!!!
> 
> She stated in other news reports that she feared losing the case to a San Francisco Jury!


This is very self-serving. She wanted to get paid something! If she lost - she loses.


----------



## DriverX

So how do we get paid?


----------



## Undermensch

chi1cabby said:


> Undermensch,
> 
> There is absolutely NO REASON why existing Drivers should NOT have & New Drivers should NOT opt-out of the Binding Arbitration Provisions of the Partner Agreement.
> 
> *New Partner Agreement, Binding Arbitration Provision, Opting Out & UberLAWSUIT Explained*


There absolutely is a reason drivers should not opt out.

It doesn't align with your view of the world and that's fine.

You are not the arbiter of what is smart and not smart. You're an Uber/Taxi driver... Maybe relax a little and realize that you want people to align with you for your own reasons, not because it is the singular correct option for everyone.


----------



## tohunt4me

LA Dispatcher said:


> Most of these drivers don't know what they want. They hate Uber so much that they sometimes root against their own interest.


This is all too true.
If Uber is eaten from within,what then ?
Carefull what you wish for.


----------



## tohunt4me

Another Uber Driver said:


> I voted "no effect". There were several reasons. The major reason is that what was not gained offsets what was. One major change that should have happened was that Uber should be required to educate its users on how it applies/administers/interprets its Star System. We have had posted, on this Forum, inside information that Uber does not want to educate its users on this. This needs to change.


You know what it changed ?
When a customer cancels,I get a " bubble" message from Uber that this will not count against me.they started this a few weeks ago.
Only change I see.
That and they now have a written deactivation Manuel.

They will ensure ground is lost not gained here.


----------



## chi1cabby

Undermensch said:


> There absolutely is a reason drivers should not opt out.


I'm not going to engage in a off topic debate on the relative merits of Opting Out of the Binding Arbitration Provisions of Uber's Partner Agreement. 
But if you'd like to state the reasons that Drivers should NOT opt out, please post them on this thread:
*New Partner Agreement, Binding Arbitration Provision, Opting Out & UberLAWSUIT Explained*

Rest of your post is not worthy of a rebuttal or a response.


----------



## Novus Caesar

DriverX said:


> So how do we get paid?


Just like any other class action lawsuit. After lawyers take their dues, you can either get your $150 AFTER they take taxes, which might mean $100, by check in the mail after you complete a form that will take several weeks to process, or you might get some weird Uber credit. You will get $100 in free rides from Uber . . .


----------



## LA Dispatcher

tohunt4me said:


> This is all too true.
> If Uber is eaten from within,what then ?
> Carefull what you wish for.


Most drivers operate in a monopoly or duop0ly market and it seems like some on this forum want to keep it that way. Don't kill the TNC industry before it even matures.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> There absolutely is a reason drivers should not opt out.
> 
> It doesn't align with your view of the world and that's fine.
> 
> You are not the arbiter of what is smart and not smart. You're an Uber/Taxi driver... Maybe relax a little and realize that you want people to align with you for your own reasons, not because it is the singular correct option for everyone.


It has nothing to do with alignment - it has to with do people having the ability and legal right to make a choice. Opting-out of the binding arbitration clause is the only way an Uber driver can PRESERVE their right to make choices. You suggesting otherwise to people here is not just 'expressing your opinion' - it is spreading false information.


----------



## Undermensch

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It has nothing to do with alignment - it has to do people having the ability and legal right to make a choice. Opting-out of the binding arbitration clause is the only way an Uber driver can PRESERVE their right to make choices. You suggesting otherwise to people here is not just 'expressing your opinion' - it is spreading false information.


What did I spread that was false? Let's see the quote.

I have said nothing false. I have said what I thought about the options, just as you have, but with a little less bullying and self-righteousness.

I understand your viewpoint and I can see why people would take that option, but I also don't think it ends up being useful to people. You, on the other hand, are claiming absolute truth and finality on your viewpoint, which is certainly not the case.


----------



## tohunt4me

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> *No/Minimal Effect*;
> 
> That Fuzzy math has my head spinning.  and it should be a well known fact that the Lawyers always get 33%+. However, per ubers math I may net $4k. Hope you have enough mileage this year to offset on next years tax return.
> 
> I see no change for deactivation, as uber gets to pick which drivers sitting on the board?. Those drivers will have had to drink the Kool-Aid first. Shall I Volunteer ?
> 
> ps ; Having a tip sign/jar in any fashion, only serves to show there is NO Class in your person being.


I do not believe in extorting the passengers either.
I will not rate them according to tip.
Either they will or they won't.

Just Ubers rhetoric has caused some that would normally tip not to.


----------



## DriverX

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It has nothing to do with alignment - it has to do people having the ability and legal right to make a choice. Opting-out of the binding arbitration clause is the only way an Uber driver can PRESERVE their right to make choices. You suggesting otherwise to people here is not just 'expressing your opinion' - it is spreading false information.


THat's partially true, but in this case it looks like everybody gets paid

The proposed 153-page settlement, which a judge must now approve, is a victory for the company. That's despite the requirement for the ride-hailing titan to pay $84 million to "all Drivers in California and Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since August 16, 2009," until the date when a court agrees to the settlement.


----------



## tohunt4me

DriverX said:


> Seems like the only really positive thing is uber having to set a policy down in writing, but it looks like they have maneuvered a way around it being set in stone by saying that the deactivation triggers are dependent on the city and the other drivers so what kinda moving target is that gonna be?
> 
> Also it does say they can't deactivate for acceptance rate anymore so thats a positive, i suppose.


Translation - if Uber needs you in a given market, they will not kick you to the curb as quickly.


----------



## DriverX

tohunt4me said:


> Translation - if Uber needs you in a given market, they will not kick you to the curb as quickly.


I hope the judge reviewing this thing makes a lot of clarifications.

For us to be ICs Uber can put very little control over how we operate. Negotiated tipping is essentially a way for drivers to raise their rates, but if they are getting deactivated for rejecting low fares then Uber is not respecting their right to negotiate all fares.


----------



## Flarpy

Undermensch said:


> I understand your viewpoint and I can see why people would take that option, but I also don't think it ends up being useful to people. You, on the other hand, are claiming absolute truth and finality on your viewpoint, which is certainly not the case.


If you can bother to opt out of mandatory arbitration, you can bother to opt out of being a member of a class in a class-action suit. Then you can choose lawsuit or voluntary binding arbitration or non-binding arbitration or mediation or whatever. Hell you can choose the last three _during _a lawsuit -- judges love it when you do that.

99.8% of the time it's wise to opt out of mandatory arbitration.

This is why, as an attorney, I'm happy to _educate _non-lawyers on the law, but I rarely debate it with them.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

DriverX said:


> I hope the judge reviewing this thing makes a lot of clarifications.
> 
> For us to be ICs Uber can put very little control over how we operate. Negotiated tipping is essentially a way for drivers to raise their rates, but if they are getting deactivated for rejecting low fares then Uber is not respecting their right to negotiate all fares.


Uber isn't telling you how to operate, it's telling you how their pax operate by using the app and accepting the terms. I'm no fan of Uber, but the real problem is that there are few choices to select from at this moment for TNC drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Guys, you have to keep in mind that this judge already rejected a similar settlement with Lyft and his comments were mainly along the lines of how it wasn't settling the misclassification issue.

We have to hope he rejects this one too.


----------



## chi1cabby

*On The Uber Settlement & What's Next For Drivers
https://onlabor.org/2016/04/22/on-the-uber-settlement-whats-next-for-drivers/*
Posted by Benjamin Sachs

There are two ways to think about whether a settlement is a good deal from the perspective of the plaintiffs. One is whether, in light of all the facts and law relevant to the particular litigation, plaintiffs' attorneys got as much for their clients as they could. No one, other than those intimately familiar with the case, can assess that question perfectly. The second is whether the settlement amounts to progress for the plaintiffs from a broader, less litigation-specific perspective. Here, outside observers can have more to say.

It will take time to fully digest the Uber settlement, announced today, but a few things seem clear. First, Uber prevailed on what is, by far, the most important issue. The primary question in this case, and the one with the greatest practical relevance, is whether whether Uber drivers can continue to be misclassified as independent contractors or will be treated as employees. As Uber proudly announced today, "Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees." Uber drivers did secure some genuine benefits. There are financial payments to the drivers (up to $8000 for those that drove the most; less for those who drive less), and drivers can now inform passengers that tips can be accepted. There are also some improvements to how and when drivers can be deactivated. And Uber has also agreed to help establish a drivers "association."

These are real gains even though, in my view, they pale in comparison to what the settlement allows Uber to do. There are also some important questions about the gains. What will it mean, in practice, that Uber can temporarily log drivers out of the app without the ability to accept new requests, but not deactivate them? Given how baked into the Uber experience the "no tipping" rule is, can we expect postings - informing passengers they can tip - to have much effect? And labor lawyers will wonder whether a drivers' association that has any teeth can be established consistent with § 8(a)(2) or antitrust law. It may well be doable, but will require some real work.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, and the drivers who fought with them, deserve credit for moving the ball forward. Looking beyond this litigation, we might turn our attention to the NLRB. Recently, the Board's general counsel announced his position that employee misclassifaction may be an unfair labor practice. We'll keep tabs as the charges start to flow.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

chi1cabby said:


> *On The Uber Settlement & What's Next For Drivers
> https://onlabor.org/2016/04/22/on-the-uber-settlement-whats-next-for-drivers/*
> Posted by Benjamin Sachs
> 
> There are two ways to think about whether a settlement is a good deal from the perspective of the plaintiffs. One is whether, in light of all the facts and law relevant to the particular litigation, plaintiffs' attorneys got as much for their clients as they could. No one, other than those intimately familiar with the case, can assess that question perfectly. The second is whether the settlement amounts to progress for the plaintiffs from a broader, less litigation-specific perspective. Here, outside observers can have more to say.
> 
> It will take time to fully digest the Uber settlement, announced today, but a few things seem clear. First, Uber prevailed on what is, by far, the most important issue. The primary question in this case, and the one with the greatest practical relevance, is whether whether Uber drivers can continue to be misclassified as independent contractors or will be treated as employees. As Uber proudly announced today, "Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees." Uber drivers did secure some genuine benefits. There are financial payments to the drivers (up to $8000 for those that drove the most; less for those who drive less), and drivers can now inform passengers that tips can be accepted. There are also some improvements to how and when drivers can be deactivated. And Uber has also agreed to help establish a drivers "association."
> 
> These are real gains even though, in my view, they pale in comparison to what the settlement allows Uber to do. There are also some important questions about the gains. What will it mean, in practice, that Uber can temporarily log drivers out of the app without the ability to accept new requests, but not deactivate them? Given how baked into the Uber experience the "no tipping" rule is, can we expect postings - informing passengers they can tip - to have much effect? And labor lawyers will wonder whether a drivers' association that has any teeth can be established consistent with § 8(a)(2) or antitrust law. It may well be doable, but will require some real work.
> 
> Plaintiffs' lawyers, and the drivers who fought with them, deserve credit for moving the ball forward. Looking beyond this litigation, we might turn our attention to the NLRB. Recently, the Board's general counsel announced his position that employee misclassifaction may be an unfair labor practice. We'll keep tabs as the charges start to flow.


Oh no...big labor is salivating. Everyone wants a piece of the action.


----------



## RockinEZ

Cou-ber said:


> So each gets roughly $240. Retirement!


You forgot that the lawyer will get 40 to 60%. 
At 40% we get $158/driver.


----------



## Txchick

Lost In Translation said:


> You are NOT an independent contractor if you cannot set your own rates. That fact alone means if Uber is setting the rate you are working for Uber, not yourself.
> 
> If you are an independent contractor you get to see upfront what you are agreeing to do. Meaning you see both the pickup and the destination and ONLY THEN do you decide if you choose to accept the work.


If this would have gone to trial & Uber would have lost drivers would have had more leverage in rates & other issues. That advantage is gone in the current situation.


----------



## chi1cabby

LA Dispatcher said:


> Oh no...big labor is salivating. Everyone wants a piece of the action.


*Benjamin Sachs *is not "Big Labor".
He is a Harvard Law Professor and co-founder of *OnLaborBlog*.


----------



## RockinEZ

Ziggy said:


> If that ... remember the final $16M doesn't have to get paid out until after Uber goes public, which by last report will be at least 3-5 years ... if ever considering how fast they are burning cash trying to buy their way into China.


Anyone with any experience dealing with China knows that Kalanick is barking up the wrong tree. China recognizes no copyrights, or intellectual property rights.

They stopped facebook in China and replaced it with a Chinese company Weibo, which covers that segment of the market in China and a lot of the rest of the world. Weibo is pretty cool. I use it to keep in touch with the Chinese engineers I met at my last job.

No youtube in China. A Chinese company called youku covers that business segment.

Google is not allowed in China, they have BAIDU. (You can use a VPN, but it is slow and a pain).

The Chinese version of Amazon is DangDang.

There is a Chinese version of eBay, Yelp, HULU, Netflix. 
In fact any western application you can think of has been replaced in China by a Chinese product.

Any western company believing they can break into the Chinese market with ride sharing is delusional. The Chinese will make that money themselves.


----------



## SacTownDood

The tipping signs/jars are a paper victory only. Nothing short of in-app tipping should have been agreed to. I also bet they flood the market with even more drivers and cut back on incentives for any driver they wan't to get rid of. Instead of kicking them out, they'll starve them out.

The whole thing just solidifies the strategy of super low base rates and making drivers toe the line by jumping through moving hoops to get any more, all fueled by a company that fosters a culture of contempt for the people they need most.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SD_Expedition said:


> It's still a game they are masters of. If Uber is penalizing drivers for not accepting fares, they are treating them as employees. It is contracted work, and as an I.C., you are not obligated to accept any contract period. Can't have it both ways Uber. IMO


Yes, it does not address "timeouts" which are a huge issue. Uber could effectively deactivate by instituting longer and longer timeouts. It appears they can still do that.

Also, cancellations are a problem because we still don't have destination info. Travis implies that they will be looking at pax cancellations and trying to see if the driver was pressuring the pax into cancelling. Less than 5% cancels is a ridiculous goal.

I don't think this solved anything. Better to have them lose in court and have drivers end up rebelling (which WILL happen once the economy improves). This has just prolonged the agony IMO.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

chi1cabby said:


> *Benjamin Sachs *is not "Big Labor".
> He is a Harvard Law Professor and co-founder of *OnLaborBlog*.


*Plaintiffs' lawyers, and the drivers who fought with them, deserve credit for moving the ball forward. Looking beyond this litigation, we might turn our attention to the NLRB. Recently, the Board's general counsel announced his position that employee misclassifaction may be an unfair labor practice.  We'll keep tabs as the charges start to flow.*

Now they want to take it to the federal level.


----------



## Ziggy

Bear in mind, this settlement and most of the new Uber concessions only apply to drivers in the 2 class-action suits. There is nothing that requires Uber to extend those concessions to other drivers ...


----------



## chi1cabby

LA Dispatcher said:


> Now they want to take it to the federal level.


They are the Drivers themselves:
*NLRB Case | Plaintiff Driver Vs Uber Technologies*


----------



## LA Dispatcher

chi1cabby said:


> They are the Drivers themselves:
> *NLRB Case | Plaintiff Driver Vs Uber Technologies*


Who's on the board and who appointed them? That's all you need to know.


----------



## chi1cabby

LA Dispatcher said:


> Who's on the board and who appointed them? That's all you need to know


This is who is on the board:
*https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/board*

*Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman*
*Kent Y. Hirozawa*
*Philip A. Miscimarra*
*Lauren McFerran*

The Board has five Members and primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases on the basis of formal records in administrative proceedings. Board Members are appointed by the President to 5-year terms, with Senate consent, the term of one Member expiring each year.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Flarpy said:


> This is why, as an attorney, I'm happy to _educate _non-lawyers on the law, but I rarely debate it with them.


You're an attorney? Have you driven for Uber while being an active attorney?



uberdriverfornow said:


> Guys, you have to keep in mind that this judge already rejected a similar settlement with Lyft and his comments were mainly along the lines of how it wasn't settling the misclassification issue.
> .


I thought some of the concessions are an attempt to widen the gap between employee/contractor



Ziggy said:


> Bear in mind, this settlement and most of the new Uber concessions only apply to drivers in the 2 class-action suits. There is nothing that requires Uber to extend those concessions to other drivers ...


but already some of them apply to all drivers in the US as of today


----------



## LA Dispatcher

LA Dispatcher said:


> Who's on the board and who appointed them? That's all you need to know.





chi1cabby said:


> This is who is on the board:
> *https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/board*
> 
> *Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman*
> *Kent Y. Hirozawa
> Philip A. Miscimarra*
> *Lauren McFerran*
> 
> The Board has five Members and primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases on the basis of formal records in administrative proceedings. Board Members are appointed by the President to 5-year terms, with Senate consent, the term of one Member expiring each year.


This is not good.
*Employees or Independent Contrators: Ties Go to the Runner and the NLRB* - See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article...es-go-to-runner-and-nlrb#sthash.UYjkDjly.dpuf


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> What did I spread that was false? Let's see the quote.
> I have said nothing false.


"There absolutely is a reason drivers should not opt out."


> I have said nothing false.


BS


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> Wrong!
> 
> By default, you are included in the class and in the damages assigned as a result of a win or settlement for that class.


You clearly do not understand the difference between 'qualifying' as a member of a class and being a party to a lawsuit.
*Everyone* identified as a potential member of the class is contacted and given the opportunity to participate in any settlement - or opt-out of the class. They are not 'bound' to be a part of the class member in a class-action

By opting-out* of the class, they reserve their right to bring an individual action.

* (NOT to be confused with opting-out of the binding arbitration clause in the Uber driver's agreement.)


----------



## chi1cabby

LA Dispatcher said:


> This is not good.
> *Employees or Independent Contrators: Ties Go to the Runner and the NLRB* - See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article...es-go-to-runner-and-nlrb#sthash.UYjkDjly.dpuf


You, and most Drivers, seem to think that the #UberLAWSUIT is about Drivers suing Uber to be classified as Employees. That is false. 
Drivers Do Not want to be classified as Employees. They want Uber to stop treating them as Employees while classifying them as ICs.

This is what Judge Chen had written in his decision certifying the class:
_"Even if Uber loses this case, it will be free to restructure its relationship with its drivers in such a way that the drivers would actually be bona fide independent contractors," Chen wrote in a 68-page decision.
*Analysis: Uber will survive, no matter what courts decide*
*http://www.sfchronicle.com/business...481531.php?t=32ccbda1cf&cmpid=twitter-premium*_


----------



## Flarpy

Bart McCoy said:


> You're an attorney? Have you driven for Uber while being an active attorney?


Sure, all the damn time. Why?


----------



## alternajock33

Bob Reynolds said:


> This is a sell out and a sad day for the drivers that are not even making the minimum wage. Lawyers are basically taking millions of dollars in fees and running while the drivers get less than $300.
> 
> Let's hope Judge Chen will see through this sham and not approve it.


If drivers don't make min wage they need to quit and leave it to the guys who know how this works. I've never made less than 17 an hour....ever. I work roughly 28 hours a week.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

chi1cabby said:


> You, and most Drivers, seem to think that the #UberLAWSUIT is about Drivers suing Uber to be classified as Employees. That is false.
> Drivers Do Not want to be classified as Employees. They want Uber to stop treating them as Employees while classifying them as ICs.
> 
> This is what Judge Chen had written in his decision certifying the class:
> _"Even if Uber loses this case, it will be free to restructure its relationship with its drivers in such a way that the drivers would actually be bona fide independent contractors," Chen wrote in a 68-page decision.
> *Analysis: Uber will survive, no matter what courts decide
> http://www.sfchronicle.com/business...481531.php?t=32ccbda1cf&cmpid=twitter-premium*_


Some of these lawsuits are actually a blessing in disguise since drivers keep gaining more concessions from Uber. The important issue is that Uber created a disruption in this sector of the transportation industry and they have benefited from it and so should all drivers. I feel that cabbies/livery should also deregulate and play on the same level field. The concern is that someone will take it to far and that decision can be final. Classifying drivers as IC once and for all will be a step in the right direction since it will open up the market with more choices for everyone.


----------



## DrivenToDistraction

While the price that Uber is paying for this settlement may strike some as minimal, there would have been no price to them at all if they had prevailed in court. In fact, there would have been legal precedent establishing that Uber drivers are not employees. Yet the company chose not to go to court, and possibly lose, even in their own backyard. I find that interesting.
I still think Uber will face a day of reckoning. Of course, I expect to have long stopped whoring myself out to them by the time it occurs. And it may just be wishful thinking on my part.
The Independent Contractor status has long been subject to abuse, most notably by the construction industry and the trucking industry. Recently courts have been ruling that if you are told where to be, when to be there, what to do, how to do it, and when to stop doing it, then you are an employee.
Obviously Uber does not tell drivers when to start work, when to stop, or where to work (although they do require drivers to take riders wherever they want to go.) They most certainly tell drivers how to work, and even strip drivers of the right to determine what they will charge for their services. IMHO they agreed to the changes re: declining ride requests because requiring drivers to accept all rides (or 90% or whatever) treads dangerously close to conferring employee status. (BTW - I predict that Uber will soon change the "opt in" nature of a ping to "opt out." In other words, instead of having a few seconds to decide if you want to accept a ride by tapping on your phone's screen, you'll have a few seconds to decline the request by tapping on the phone. Otherwise, you'll be on the hook.)
The law always lags behind technology, and it may be that some day we will see an entirely new employment classification, one that somehow splits the difference between contractor and employee. When, how, and if this will happen depends greatly on the nature of the Labor Department and its Secretary, and that of course depends on which party controls the White House.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

LA Dispatcher said:


> I feel that cabbies/livery should also deregulate and play on the same level field.


As a livery driver for 15 years I must disagree. Never deregulate an industry that is responsible for the nation's #1 cause of death. Between insurance, licensing and permits my company spends tens of thousands a year to be compliant. With the exception of shuttle drivers almost all "fare for hire" drivers have always been Independent Contractors. With the many legitimate transportation companies in the Valley, I've never heard of an instance in which a commercial insurance claim wasn't ever satisfied. When Uber's rates were over $2.00 a mile I never heard 1 complaint about being an IC. Some free advice, as a business owner make sure you cover your butt. Simple legal fees can easily surpass 10k. Either comply or quit, it's an easy decision.


----------



## LADriver

Lost In Translation said:


> *SELL OUT SHANNON*.
> 
> I wrote her to tell her she sold the drivers down the river for money. Travis & Uber can get to any politician and any lawyer and buy them off. She couldn't even get tipping added to the application. Shannon will make millions and never have to work another day in her life, while the rest of us got screwed.
> 
> _Write to this witch at __[email protected]_ and tell her what you think of her selling us out for personal gain. We had a great case. Why settle two months before the trial? Travis played her like a violin.
> 
> How can we start a letter writing campaign to Judge Chan to protest the settlement amount and at least get us a billion dollars. The rest of our case is a lost cause.


Well said. SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN got taken to the UBER wheelhouse of shady lawyers and politicians. I specifically spell out her name because her law firm is madly Googling her every mention to gather public reaction to this weak, pathetic, slime-ball, sell-out, money-grabbing, illegal, laughable, idiotic, amateur settlement.

Travis Kalanick has stated that tipping will never be a part of the UBER App. So, of course, UBER will not update a tipping option. Who the hell is going to put a tipping sign in their car, like a tipping jar at Starbucks? It makes the driver look like a whining, pathetic, broke, schmuck. My car is free of any signage, except for the LAX permit and UBER logo in the front window which are required by law. I could post, "Hey, Drunk Morons, Don't Throw-up In My New Prius" signs all over, but I don't.

Hopefully Judge CHEN will see this charade for what it is. A desperate buyout of SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for pennies on the dollar for the so called plaintiffs. What a hoot. So sad.


----------



## LADriver

DrivenToDistraction said:


> While the price that Uber is paying for this settlement may strike some as minimal, there would have been no price to them at all if they had prevailed in court. In fact, there would have been legal precedent establishing that Uber drivers are not employees. Yet the company chose not to go to court, and possibly lose, even in their own backyard. I find that interesting.
> I still think Uber will face a day of reckoning. Of course, I expect to have long stopped whoring myself out to them by the time it occurs. And it may just be wishful thinking on my part.
> The Independent Contractor status has long been subject to abuse, most notably by the construction industry and the trucking industry. Recently courts have been ruling that if you are told where to be, when to be there, what to do, how to do it, and when to stop doing it, then you are an employee.
> Obviously Uber does not tell drivers when to start work, when to stop, or where to work (although they do require drivers to take riders wherever they want to go.) They most certainly tell drivers how to work, and even strip drivers of the right to determine what they will charge for their services. IMHO they agreed to the changes re: declining ride requests because requiring drivers to accept all rides (or 90% or whatever) treads dangerously close to conferring employee status. (BTW - I predict that Uber will soon change the "opt in" nature of a ping to "opt out." In other words, instead of having a few seconds to decide if you want to accept a ride by tapping on your phone's screen, you'll have a few seconds to decline the request by tapping on the phone. Otherwise, you'll be on the hook.)
> The law always lags behind technology, and it may be that some day we will see an entirely new employment classification, one that somehow splits the difference between contractor and employee. When, how, and if this will happen depends greatly on the nature of the Labor Department and its Secretary, and that of course depends on which party controls the White House.


The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) which regulates intra-state transportation created a whole new category, the Technology Network Companies (TNC) to legally allow UBER to operate in the state in the first place. I'm sure this settlement is only the beginning of what is to come. The State legislature can establish a new employee versus independent contractor law all by itself. So, UBER is not out of the woods regarding how they treat drivers. This movement will most likely move state by state before the feds get involved. (Gay Marriage anyone?!).


----------



## SD_Expedition

LA Dis
0
[QUOTE="alternajock33 said:


> If drivers don't make min wage they need to quit and leave it to the guys who know how this works. I've never made less than 17 an hour....ever. I work roughly 28 hours a week.


How long have you been driving for Uber?


----------



## SEAL Team 5

LADriver said:


> Well said. SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN got taken to the UBER wheelhouse of shady lawyers and politicians. I specifically spell out her name because her law firm is madly Googling her every mention to gather public reaction to this weak, pathetic, slime-ball, sell-out, money-grabbing, illegal, laughable, idiotic, amateur settlement.
> 
> Travis Kalenic has stated that tipping will never be a part of the UBER App. So, of course, UBER will not update a tipping option. Who the hell is going to put a tipping sign in their car, like a tipping jar at Starbucks? It makes the driver look like a whining, pathetic, broke, schmuck. My car is free of any signage, except for the LAX permit and UBER logo in the front window which are required by law. I could post, "Hey, Drunk Morons, Don't Throw-up In My New Prius" signs all over, but I don't.
> 
> Hopefully Judge CHEN will see this charade for what it is. A desperate buyout of SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for pennies on the dollar for the so called plaintiffs. What a hoot. So sad.


To the 99.5% of ride share drivers that have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER made $.01 in the "fare for hire" industry before Uber, please post what you honestly thought driving for Uber was going to be. Did it cross anyone's mind that you didn't fill out a W-4, I-9 or any other required document for employment. If you're 16 and this is your very 1st job, I could see you overlooking some items. Almost every taxi I've ever seen has had the phrase " driver is an independent contractor" usually on the drivers door. Almost every livery/taxi/limo has always had commercial plates or Z plates for cabs. I'm just really curious what some of you thought before driving for a ride share.


----------



## Mimid

Personally, I would prefer to remain an independent contractor. I don't want to be told what time to go to work and for how long just to get some benefits. That would feel like selling myself out for a handout. Yeah, benefits are expensive, but that's just something that goes with running a business.


----------



## LA Dispatcher

SEAL Team 5 said:


> As a livery driver for 15 years I must disagree. Never deregulate an industry that is responsible for the nation's #1 cause of death. Between insurance, licensing and permits my company spends tens of thousands a year to be compliant. With the exception of shuttle drivers almost all "fare for hire" drivers have always been Independent Contractors. With the many legitimate transportation companies in the Valley, I've never heard of an instance in which a commercial insurance claim wasn't ever satisfied. When Uber's rates were over $2.00 a mile I never heard 1 complaint about being an IC. Some free advice, as a business owner make sure you cover your butt. Simple legal fees can easily surpass 10k. Either comply or quit, it's an easy decision.


If drivers/pax want to pay less and take on those risks, it should be their decision. If you want to put in some reasonable restrictions as far as fatigue, that should be about it. The free market should figure out the rest.


----------



## riChElwAy

SD_Expedition said:


> It's already in the works, a least I read about it somewhere.


it's Meyer v Kalanick .. antitrust / price fixing .. Uber is not party to the lawsuit, it's versus Travis Kalanick, because he is the sole architect and mastermind behind the whole price-fixing scheme


----------



## SEAL Team 5

LA Dispatcher said:


> If drivers/pax want to pay less and take on those risks, it should be their decision. If you want to put in some reasonable restrictions as far as fatigue, that should be about it. The free market should figure out the rest.


So would you get on a plane that hasn't had a FAA inspection in 10 years just so you could save $100 on your round trip ticket? Would you trust your baby to an unlicensed pediatrician? Do you drink and eat all the dairy products you want in Mexico? Would you rather drink Jack Daniels or Moonshine from a backwoods distillery? We need gov't regulation, or the Ebola outbreak in East Africa could easily be knocking on your door.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

chi1cabby said:


> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ns-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html?referer=
> 
> *APRIL 21, 2016*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - Uber has long been embroiled in a debate over the status of its drivers: Should they be independent contractors or full-time employees?.


The real problem with Uber is the firm grip and tight supervision that they exercise over drivers, their cars, their attitudes, etc. If they were just renting the technology for dispatching and collecting credit card receipts instead of imposing prices and firing drivers for trivia, they'd have a lot better case that the drivers were freelancing.

Had Uber decided just to do that, market technology, they could have been successful without running afoul of the authorities and subjecting themselves to all this legality.


----------



## riChElwAy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is absolutely stunning how little people seem to understand about class-action law suits.
> The whole purpose of a suit is to seek remedy for bad practices by a company which affect a large number ('class') of people.
> Most drivers do not want to be employees.
> Drivers want to know what the rules are for deactivation - and they want an appeals process.
> Drivers want Uber to stop implying to riders that 'tips are included in the fare'.
> 
> In this settlement, Uber has agreed to "grow-up" and address these in a manner that is acceptable to Uber - and hopefully beneficial to drivers. They have agreed to FUND the appeals process for drivers. And they are ponying up at least $84 million in tribute to those in the class.
> 
> In my opinion, this is a much bigger 'win' for Uber drivers than anyone is giving credit.
> 
> The judge in this case, Judge Chen, however, may decide to focus on the misclassification issue - and flat out refuse to approve the settlement. The Lyft settlement was NOT approved by the court.


You make excellent points, but the angst from everybody here is that WE KNOW HOW UBER OPERATES .. there is enough gray area in this settlement to which Uber will exploit to their advantage and we all know this.. for example, drivers association to meet quarterly to "discuss" "faithfully" we all know this will have zero effect and Uber will continue to control everything .. also in the settlement is drivers ability to reject calls cancel calls, but "to a certain extent" then they'll be shut off BY UBER ... tipping is still NOT IN-APP OPTION which makes it cash-only tipping which means if a riding passenger has no cash, no tip! and how many passengers will lie to their driver "oh i have no cash, can i tip you in the app?" when they know damn well there is no tip option in the app ... this settlement is a mammoth win for Travis Kalanick, Uber .. a potential huge blow to the Uber drivers


----------



## LA Dispatcher

riChElwAy said:


> it's Meyer v Kalanick .. antitrust / price fixing .. Uber is not party to the lawsuit, it's versus Travis Kalanick, because he is the sole architect and mastermind behind the whole price-fixing scheme


He pretty much admitted it.
*Uber CEO Travis Kalanick spoke with Fortune's Jessi Hempel at Brainstorm Tech in Aspen, Colo.*

*http://fortune.com/2013/07/23/video-and-transcript-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick/*


Below is an unedited transcript excerpt:

*JESSI HEMPEL*: *So, looking narrowly at transportation alone, Travis. You know, there are a slew of companies, I think Lift is probably one of the most notable ones -

TRAVIS KALANICK: Sure.

JESSI HEMPEL: - who are experimenting in this space.

TRAVIS KALANICK: Yes.

JESSI HEMPEL: How do you think about them?

TRAVIS KALANICK: Well, I think they were a pretty interesting - took a pretty interesting approach to things. Basically, the way to think about it, Lift basically goes into the markets that Uber is in and then gets folks who don't have commercial licenses and don't have commercial insurance and says bring your own car and provide Uber-like service.

And they have a personality that they put along with that, sort of fist bumps and the cars have these pink moustaches and things like that.

JESSI HEMPEL: Right.

TRAVIS KALANICK: It's regulatory arbitrage. Like, what happened was they did it in California first and I'm like, holy cow, every trip that's happening - I'm reading the law - every trip that's happening is a criminal misdemeanor being committed by the person driving. I don't think that's a good law, but that is the law. So I'm just like, I'm kind of staying out of this one for a little bit.

And watched it happen for a year. But what they were able to do because no commercial insurance and because of their easy access to supply, the cost was really, really low. And so you could see a situation where they'd eat you up from the bottom up.

JESSI HEMPEL: Right.

TRAVIS KALANICK: And so stay on the sidelines, the regulators are going to do something about this. They ended up doing nothing about it, and then ultimately after a year saying, you know what? This is okay. This is all right. And we ultimately signed an agreement with the State of California saying that. And so then we basically found a way to get what they call non-TCP license transportation providers on board in a way that with background checks and insurance and things like this. But, ultimately, as they follow us in other cities, we now have a playbook. Which is if it's totally just the regulatory risk is just off the charts, we're going to stand back, watch it for 30 days, let the regulators know, look, either enforce the laws that you have in place right now, or embrace it. That's fine. But if you have a policy of non-enforcement that goes 30 days, we call this regulatory ambiguity, then we're coming in too because we want to participate in this kind of innovation.*


----------



## LA Dispatcher

SEAL Team 5 said:


> So would you get on a plane that hasn't had a FAA inspection in 10 years just so you could save $100 on your round trip ticket?


Maybe $500


SEAL Team 5 said:


> Would you trust your baby to an unlicensed pediatrician?


Sure, if they are qualified enough and provide a good price by not paying for a stupid license.


SEAL Team 5 said:


> Do you drink and eat all the dairy products you want in Mexico?


They have supermarkets just like us. But I never gotten sick from eating quesadillas drunk in baja.


SEAL Team 5 said:


> Would you rather drink Jack Daniels or Moonshine from a backwoods distillery?


If I know the guy, I'd give moonshine a shot


SEAL Team 5 said:


> We need gov't regulation, or the Ebola outbreak in East Africa could easily be knocking on your door.


You can order it on Amazon Prime and have it delivered by someone without commercial insurance in less than 2 hours.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Someone post this on Kaladicks twitter account:


----------



## ShortBusDriver

chi1cabby said:


> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ns-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html?referer=
> 
> *APRIL 21, 2016*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - Uber has long been embroiled in a debate over the status of its drivers: Should they be independent contractors or full-time employees?
> 
> Uber says that as independent contractors, its drivers get flexibility. Their freelancer status also lets the company sidestep the costs of full-time employees, including paying minimum wage and the employers' share of Social Security. But labor groups and lawyers have argued that Uber drivers should be classified as employees to receive worker protections.
> 
> On Thursday, Uber moved a step closer to getting its way. The company reached a settlement in a pair of class-action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that will let it continue to categorize drivers in those states as independent contractors - a landmark agreement that could have lasting implications on the long-term viability of the ride-hailing service.
> 
> Under the settlement, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases. The company also agreed to several concessions to appease driver concerns, including giving more information on how and why drivers are banned from using the app, as well as aiding in creating new "drivers associations" in both states.
> 
> The settlement is a significant victory for Uber on the matter of its drivers' status. By keeping its drivers as contractors, the San Francisco-based company can keep its costs low. And while the settlement applies only to two states and is nonbinding elsewhere, the agreement and the changes that Uber is adopting may influence regulators in other places where the issue has surfaced.
> 
> "Drivers value their independence - the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," Travis Kalanick, chief executive of Uber, said in a company blog post announcing the settlement.
> 
> "That said, as Uber has grown - over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S. - we haven't always done a good job working with drivers," he wrote. "It's time to change."
> 
> The agreement, which is subject to approval by Judge Edward M. Chen, who is presiding over the cases, says Uber must pay $84 million to the plaintiffs represented in the case. Uber will dispense an additional $16 million if the company holds an initial public offering and the average valuation of Uber increases to one and a half times that of its last financing round. In December 2015, Uber was valued at $62.5 billion, making it the most valuable private technology company in the world.
> 
> The class-action suits that are being settled were originally filed in 2013 and became the biggest suits in terms of the number of drivers represented. Uber still faces litigation about driver status in other states, including similarlawsuits in Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Last June, the California Labor Commissioner's Office said Barbara Ann Berwick, a former driver for Uber, should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. That case, which does not apply to drivers other than Ms. Berwick, is being appealed by Uber.
> 
> The settlement's changes are aimed at reducing points of contention for drivers. In the past, Uber has been able to boot drivers from its platform with little explanation, something that Uber said it would no longer be able to do. The company published a lengthy document detailing all the reasons a driver may be deactivated, from unsafe driving and carrying a firearm - which is prohibited - to using drugs and alcohol.
> 
> Uber said it would also provide drivers with more information about their ratings system - a measurement based upon individual scores from passengers - and how ratings were calculated. The company is exploring creating an appeals process for Uber drivers who have been deactivated because of a low rating.
> 
> Uber also agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline to accept requests for rides from passengers, a practice that previously would contribute negatively to a driver's overall standing with the company. Instead, drivers may be temporarily logged out of the app and unable to accept new requests if they are "consistently not accepting trip requests."
> 
> "We know that sometimes things come up that prevent you from accepting every trip request, but not accepting dispatches causes delays and degrades the reliability of the system," the company said in its newly published driver deactivation policy.
> 
> Uber refers to a trip declined by a driver as a cancellation. Each city will have a maximum cancellation rate based on the average cancellation rate of the drivers in the area, the company said. It could eventually deactivate those who persistently exceed the rate.
> 
> Uber said many of the changes were a part of its overall maturation process, as it has grown from a small start-up to a global organization in roughly six years.
> 
> Yet many of the policy changes Uber announced as part of its settlement - particularly changes to its protocol on deactivating drivers over their cancellation and acceptance rates - appear designed to defuse the plaintiffs' arguments that Uber drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, as the company maintains.
> 
> Given that the proposed settlement would allow the company to continue pushing drivers to accept most rides, pick up most passengers and maintain their cars in certain ways - alevel of control that is often associated with employees rather than contractors - many critics of the company's labor model may not be appeased.
> 
> Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco and Noam Scheiber from Washington.


In other words, nothing was settled legally. A few concessions on driver treatment and a little money to kick the can down the road for the time being.

The CPUC needs to grow a pair and do their job.


----------



## AllenChicago

Did individual drivers have to "opt-in" to this lawsuit in order to receive their windfall? I missed out on a big $15 award from Sprint because I didn't opt-in to a 2006 class-action suit/settlement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

LA Dispatcher said:


> Uber isn't telling you how to operate, it's telling you how their pax operate by using the app and accepting the terms. I'm no fan of Uber, but the real problem is that there are few choices to select from at this moment for TNC drivers.


But according to my agreement with Uber, the rider is not an Uber customer - as to the provision of transportation services, the rider has a DIRECT relationship with ME, the driver:

_2.3 Your Relationship with Users. You acknowledge and agree that your provision of Transportation
Services to Users creates a direct business relationship between you and the User._​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

AllenChicago said:


> Did individual drivers have to "opt-in" to this lawsuit in order to receive their windfall? I missed out on a big $15 award from Sprint because I didn't opt-in to a 2006 class-action suit/settlement.


There is no 'windfall' until the court approves the settlement. Before anyone can receive any distribution to which they may be entitled by virtue of being a member of the 'class', they will need to 'ignore' the notification sent to them by the atty's informing them of how to opt-out of the class. If a class member fails to opt-out of the class, then they will be considered to have provided consent to the atty's for representation and the class as a whole. If you believe you qualify as a member of the class and want to join the class, you can write to the plaintiff's attorney and ask to be included.


----------



## czervik7

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> *No/Minimal Effect*;
> 
> ps ; Having a tip sign/jar in any fashion, only serves to show there is NO Class in your person being.


You, sir, are a complete and total ahole! You're an affront to tipped employees everywhere.

We have to EDUCATE Uber riders about tipping because Uber has brainwashed them for years. I have many riders who have NO IDEA a tip isn't included.

I have various ways to stimulate that conversation. Some involve invoking Lyft's in-app tipping during regular conversation.

I will definitely post a sign to EDUCATE riders that we are NOT tipped by Uber.

I, sir, have plenty of class. I don't need your desire to work for peanuts getting in my way of making a decent wage.


----------



## AllenChicago

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There is no 'windfall' until the court approves the settlement. Before anyone can receive any distribution to which they may be entitled by virtue of being a member of the 'class', they will need to 'ignore' the notification sent to them by the atty's informing them of how to opt-out of the class. If class member fails to opt-out of the class, then they will be considered to have provided consent to the atty's for representation and the class as a whole. If you believe you qualify as a member of the class and want to join the class, you can write to the plaintiff's attorney and ask to be included.


Michael, thank-you for that thorough response. Because I only drive for Lyft, I was wondering how the mechanics of this particular class-action suit worked. There seem to be several ongoing suits all around the country, with Uber as the target.

I don't know if this article has been posted already, but it shares what some DRIVERS think of the settlement...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-drivers-react-mixed-emotions-20160422-story.html

Thanks again, Michael!

-Allen in Chicagoland


----------



## Osamah

I am still wondering what the complaint is/was. You have a car, a phone, Internet, a person with a good driving history, insurance, gas, each of which was your choice. Road laws are enforced by police. What does Uber owe you exactly ???


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Osamah said:


> What does Uber owe you exactly ???


$.53 a mile after their cut. Uber on people.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Undermensch said:


> Stop it.


What or why should he stop? He should stop making convincing arguments about preserving choices? He should stop making arguments that bring into play legal reasoning? Why? ....because it conflicts with your agenda, or lack thereof? If you, or others, do not want to be bothered opting out, state that.



Undermensch said:


> I think the legislature and prosecutors should deal with almost all of that. We do not have a need for independent lawyers to try to govern companies for us.


Now I know that  Michael - Cleveland is wasting his bandwidth on you....you actually TRUST the government and the prosecutors? I trust the government and the prosecutors---to take money from the fatcats and sell my sorry behind down the river. I trust the politicians and the prosecutors--to take money from the fatcats so that those fatcats can break laws and make millions while the same government and prosecutors are so greedy that they want to steal my few pennies, in addition to what they receive from the fatcats. I could continue.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Famous last words until you actually need to sue. The point, AGAIN, is that only an idiot would give up the right to sue (or participate in a class action) when they don't have to. Opting-out of the binding arbitration agreement PRESERVES your choices. Failing to opt-out LIMITS your choices.


.....but he trusts the Government and the prosecutors.....what possibly could go wrong?



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Ah - you think more legislation is what is needed - because corporate lobbyists always have people's best interest at heart - and no politician or judge or legislator - or city council member can be influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets?


Did you fail to read his post? He trusts the government and the prosecutors.


----------



## Osamah

SEAL Team 5 said:


> $.53 a mile after their cut. Uber on people.


Only drivers got the hit ? I don't know the details but I doubt there was a meeting which singled out the drivers. Additionally, management is young professionals, they can't afford to make decisions intended to inflict suffering upon drivers.


----------



## Txchick

LA Dispatcher said:


> *Plaintiffs' lawyers, and the drivers who fought with them, deserve credit for moving the ball forward. Looking beyond this litigation, we might turn our attention to the NLRB. Recently, the Board's general counsel announced his position that employee misclassifaction may be an unfair labor practice.  We'll keep tabs as the charges start to flow.*
> 
> Now they want to take it to the federal level.


This lawsuit was in federal court.


----------



## KMANDERSON

Bart McCoy said:


> PREACH!!!!
> 
> I don't think any lawsuit can FORCE a company to raise rates? Especially if they "employ" independent contractors?
> 
> clearly that is NOT the definition of being able to set your own rates, smh


I was talking about the settlement.They could have made it part of the deal.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

czervik7 said:


> You, sir, are a complete and total ahole! You're an affront to tipped employees everywhere.
> 
> We have to EDUCATE Uber riders about tipping because Uber has brainwashed them for years. I have many riders who have NO IDEA a tip isn't included.
> .


"brainwashed" is hardly the accurate term, "misinformed" is more appropriate.

Uber has been crystal clear, pointing out in precise terms that the average Uber driver rakes in 90k a year and is making more money than ever with the lower fares. The passengers believe it because they want to believe it, its to their advantage to believe it.


----------



## Bart McCoy

KMANDERSON said:


> I was talking about the settlement.They could have made it part of the deal.


like what? raise rates to $1.75 and include a stipulation that they can't lower it? wishful thinking


----------



## toi

unfortunately Shannon Liss-Riordan disappointed me majorly.

the result to me feels as if she found her cut to be good enough therefore she somehow plays it as its a victory type settlement.

the amount per driver is going to be extremely funny compared to what the actual reality is.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SEAL Team 5 said:


> So would you get on a plane that hasn't had a FAA inspection in 10 years just so you could save $100 on your round trip ticket? Would you trust your baby to an unlicensed pediatrician? Do you drink and eat all the dairy products you want in Mexico? Would you rather drink Jack Daniels or Moonshine from a backwoods distillery? We need gov't regulation, or the Ebola outbreak in East Africa could easily be knocking on your door.


Exactly. Heck, why have any laws at all? I have a gun. Who needs laws about killing people? I can just kill them first.


----------



## Ziggy

toi said:


> unfortunately Shannon Liss-Riordan disappointed me majorly.
> the result to me feels as if she found her cut to be good enough therefore she somehow plays it as its a victory type settlement.
> the amount per driver is going to be extremely funny compared to what the actual reality is.


the downside to class-action suits ... attorneys make bank and members of the class get a "pat on the back"; granted the attorney did all the work on the front end ... but still $40M+ for attorney ... and then $48M split between 365,000 members


----------



## SEAL Team 5

[QUOTE="toi, post: 1017115, member: 1968

the amount per driver is going to be extremely funny compared to what the actual reality is.[/QUOTE]
Hate to tell you this but the actual reality is that the drivers themselves caused this. When Uber dropped the rates, the drivers kept driving and the idiots kept joining. Most Uber drivers have less then 1 year driving for Uber.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Why settle? By settling uber must feel their at fault in something and don't want to be exposed. 
Screw the settlement, expose uber in the courts.... the settlement is a benefit only to lawyers and uber.


----------



## riChElwAy

Like him or not, Uber Man has posted his reaction to Shannon's Sellout-tlement ...

"They settled this case for a ridiculously cheap amount. This amount of money is nothing to Uber."
-UberMan

"This is despicable. I don't understand how she settled this case for drivers because this didn't do anything for drivers."
-UberMan

"In my opinion, this is sad, this is really sad."
-UberMan

here is the link to his YouTube video...


----------



## chi1cabby

*#SelloutShannon*
The Non-monetary components of the *Settlement* Paras 135 (a) - (h), such as written Deactivation Policy, Appeals Process for Deactivation & Drivers Association's, will sunset in 2 years at the latest.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

toi said:


> the amount per driver is going to be extremely funny compared to what the actual reality is.


For California drivers: A voucher for buy one roast beef sandwich at Carl's Jr. and get another sandwich free plus a large Coke and a free fries.

For Massachusetts drivers: A voucher for buy one large pepperoni pizza at Papa Gino's and get a small plain free.



Ziggy said:


> the downside to class-action suits ... attorneys make bank and members of the class get a "pat on the back"; granted the attorney did all the work on the front end ... but still $40M+ for attorney ... and then $48M split between 365,000 members


Do not forget that the lawyers take "expenses, fees" and all of that other stuff out of the clients' Forty-Eight million. The lawyers pad those expenses. This is one, among several, reasons why, in class action suits, the lawyers get almost all of it, the lead plaintiffs get a little bit and everyone else gets a voucher from Subway for buy one six inch sandwich and get a twelve inch free.



UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Why settle? By settling uber must feel their at fault in something and don't want to be exposed..... the settlement is a benefit only to lawyers and uber.


The defendant will try to settle because he does not want to roll the dice with a jury and possibly take a large hit. In some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia (where there was no pending action), juries take the attitude that this is a big company with piles of money; it can pay. Ask the insurance companies about that one. The defendant will try to come up with a number that the plaintiff will take to go away.

On the other side, the plaintiff wants to avoid the possibility of unfavourable rulings from a judge as well as trying to keep the lawyer's meter off. "Take the money and run" rules. Further, the lawyer wants an easy payday without actually having to try a case.

One of the terms usually included in a settlement is a specific statement that the defendant admits to no wrongdoing.

The greatest beneficiaries of class action suits are the lawyers. The defence lawyers collect huge fees, the plaintiff lawyers take most of the settlement amount. The greatest beneficiaries of almost any suit are the lawyers, in fact.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Another Uber Driver said:


> For California drivers: A voucher for buy one roast beef sandwich at Carl's Jr. and get another sandwich free plus a large Coke and a free fries.
> 
> For Massachusetts drivers: A voucher for buy one large pepperoni pizza at Papa Gino's and get a small plain free.
> 
> Do not forget that the lawyers take "expenses, fees" and all of that other stuff out of the clients' Forty-Eight million. The lawyers pad those expenses. This is one, among several, reasons why, in class action suits, the lawyers get almost all of it, the lead plaintiffs get a little bit and everyone else gets a voucher from Subway for buy one six inch sandwich and get a twelve inch free.
> 
> The defendant will try to settle because he does not want to roll the dice with a jury and possibly take a large hit. In some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia (where there was no pending action), juries take the attitude that this is a big company with piles of money; it can pay. Ask the insurance companies about that one. The defendant will try to come up with a number that the plaintiff will take to go away.
> 
> On the other side, the plaintiff wants to avoid the possibility of unfavourable rulings from a judge as well as trying to keep the lawyer's meter off. "Take the money and run" rules. Further, the lawyer wants an easy payday without actually having to try a case.
> 
> One of the terms usually included in a settlement is a specific statement that the defendant admits to no wrongdoing.
> 
> The greatest beneficiaries of class action suits are the lawyers. The defence lawyers collect huge fees, the plaintiff lawyers take most of the settlement amount. The greatest beneficiaries of almost any suit are the lawyers, in fact.


If the monetary gain is all that the drivers were after, then they surely have gotten a bad deal. The point I'm making is, why settle if there is no real gain? Take the case to court and let the facts come out. Uber doesnt want all that exposure and that's why they settled. Once a settlement is offered counter with demands......


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> *1. *If the monetary gain is all that the drivers were after, then they surely have gotten a bad deal.
> 
> *2. *The point I'm making is, why settle if there is no real gain?
> 
> *3. *Once a settlement is offered counter with demands......


1. *THIS
*
2. The lawyer tells them to settle. If the client continues to balk, the lawyer will issue a series of threats to stop representing the client. The threats start as veiled, but, if the client is particullarly stubborn, they can escalate to a bald threat to terminate the Retainer Agreement. The lawyer still collects big money, though.

3. Usually, there is a series of back and forth when the lawyers try to settle a case. Rarely do you find a lawyer who wants to go to trial. I have been through more than a few of these when I was an Official of a cab company. When you are in the transportation business, you get sued. It goes with the territory. (Uber is not a transportation company, it is a "technology company", yeah, right, sure, every day..............................why does Uber care, then, if its drivers must submit to a fingerprint check if it is only a "technology company"?)


----------



## Undermensch

Another Uber Driver said:


> What or why should he stop? He should stop making convincing arguments about preserving choices? He should stop making arguments that bring into play legal reasoning? Why? ....because it conflicts with your agenda, or lack thereof? If you, or others, do not want to be bothered opting out, state that.


I have stated that I don't want to bother opting out and that I think it has no real benefit to me while allowing lawyers to get rich. Multiple times.

The "stop it" that you took out of context is in reference to the classic trolling technique he's using of never giving an inch even when clearly wrong. He said read the driver agreement to see that we could negotiate fares. I did. I quoted it and posted that the agreement states only that we can negotiate a lower fare and Uber will honor it (I suppose we have to email support to get that to happen).

Faced with this truth he couldn't even say "oh yeah, fine". Instead he tried to claim that what he really meant was that I needed to read the agreement AND agree with his ridiculous claim that somehow the word "lower" in the agreement is not applicable.

I'm all for having real debates where people are right on some points and wrong on others. But trying to claim that you 100% know that a term in a contract is not applicable is farcical and not useful.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Undermensch said:


> The "stop it" that you took out of context is in reference to the classic trolling technique he's using of never giving an inch even when clearly wrong.
> 
> He said read the driver agreement to see that we could negotiate fares. I did. I quoted it and posted that the agreement states only that we can negotiate a lower fare and Uber will honor it (I suppose we have to email support to get that to happen).
> 
> he tried to claim that what he really meant was that I needed to read the agreement AND agree with his ridiculous claim that somehow the word "lower" in the agreement is not applicable.
> 
> I'm all for having real debates where people are right on some points and wrong on others.


He is not trolling. You, however are namecalling. Namecalling is the last resort of someone who clearly is in error. Further, you are resorting to another tactic that you have displayed previously: appointing yourself the referee and declaring yourself the winner.

He is correct when he states that the "lower" is not applicable. You would be aware, perhaps, of the concept of "unenforceable"? What might be open to debate, however is, does unenforceable content void only some, or all, of a given provision? Do the parties treat the whole provision as non-existent, or, do the parties treat as non-existent only that which is not enforceable?

Participants in any contest, be it a "real debate" or some other contest, do not get to referee, as well. Play or referee; pick one, you can not be both.

Namecalling is a recognised tactic mostly in schoolyard debates. Schoolyard debates rarely are "real".


----------



## Txchick

KMANDERSON said:


> I was talking about the settlement.They could have made it part of the deal.


Yes they could of!! If Uber would have lost this in court, it would have given Drivers much more leverage. Hopefully judge rejects this settlement.


----------



## Txchick

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> If the monetary gain is all that the drivers were after, then they surely have gotten a bad deal. The point I'm making is, why settle if there is no real gain? Take the case to court and let the facts come out. Uber doesnt want all that exposure and that's why they settled. Once a settlement is offered counter with demands......


Exactly!! If you win your side has much more leverage!!


----------



## TNCDemise

Darrell said:


> Nope, the lawyers get their 40 % off the top and the settlement was for 84 million with 16 million coming should Uber go public. That means the lawyers get 33.6 million of that. The drivers then split 50.4 million by 385,000 = $131.


The lawyers are supposed to get 25 percent according to the agreement


----------



## Darrell

TNCDemise said:


> The lawyers are supposed to get 25 percent according to the agreement


Wow, that's the lowest percentage I've ever heard of a lawyer taking, but that still is 21 million for them.


----------



## optmeout

SD_Expedition said:


> So what mileage are they going to use to account for the settlement checks? What Uber documented or the actual recorded total milaege. I have records of the actual, and what Uber sent me was 1/3 of it.


looks like 2 x miles with passengers in car from email I got if you didn't opt out you don't get paid if you opted out you should get email from lawyer


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Interesting - - as part of the settlement agreement, Uber reserves the right to back out of it in its entirety unless the court agrees to vacate its earlier ruling that the Binding Arbitration Clause of the Uber Driver agreement is unenforceable. If the court refuses to hold that the binding arbitration clause is valid for drivers in the US, then the whole deal is 'off'.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> I have stated that I don't want to bother opting out and that I think it has no real benefit to me while allowing lawyers to get rich. Multiple times.
> 
> The "stop it" that you took out of context is in reference to the classic trolling technique he's using of never giving an inch even when clearly wrong. He said read the driver agreement to see that we could negotiate fares. I did. I quoted it and posted that the agreement states only that we can negotiate a lower fare and Uber will honor it (I suppose we have to email support to get that to happen).
> 
> Faced with this truth he couldn't even say "oh yeah, fine". Instead he tried to claim that what he really meant was that I needed to read the agreement AND agree with his ridiculous claim that somehow the word "lower" in the agreement is not applicable.


Now you're just lying - and your prior posts in this thread show it.


> I'm all for having real debates where people are right on some points and wrong on others. But trying to claim that you 100% know that a term in a contract is not applicable is farcical and not useful.


Learn something about contract law and look up the legal meaning of the word "ambiguous" - and how the court is required to interpret any ambiguity in a contract in favor of the party with 'less control' and/or the party which did not author the contract.


----------



## SCdave

Just wondering...is this "Settlement" most likely just the 1st round?
- Settlement disallowed by Judge
- Uber able to back out because of a clause in the settlement wording (as someone pointed out)
- Either of the two above and new settlement is reached
- Ends up going to court

Hmmmm


----------



## observer

SCdave said:


> Just wondering...is this "Settlement" most likely just the 1st round?
> - Settlement disallowed by Judge
> - Uber able to back out because of a clause in the settlement wording (as someone pointed out)
> - Either of the two above and new settlement is reached
> - Ends up going to court
> 
> Hmmmm


Ends up going to court in 2-3 years.


----------



## SCdave

Also, sorry if it was noted somewhere, but what is the start date and end date to tally up the Driver Mileage for the Chart showing possible compensation? I see total mileage by Opted In and Opted Out in with possible compensation from various online sources, and the email from [email protected] / Shannon Liss-Riordan, but no reference to a start and stop date.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Drive777 said:


> A lot of the language in the settlement was directed only at drivers in two states (CA and MA) but that puts drivers in other states at a disadvantage for having suffered the same injuries.
> 
> What incentive does Uber have to pay or do anything for drivers outside of the original class?


Uber already has implemented new policies for the US. It is in their interest to do so because otherwise plaintiff's in each state could bring similar lawsuits and Uber would have to defend them in each Federal district and possibly appeal them in each circuit.

This is what many seem to have missed with this suit: the final outcome will, in all likelihood, set the standard (if not legal precedent) for the entire country.


----------



## KMANDERSON

Bart McCoy said:


> like what? raise rates to $1.75 and include a stipulation that they can't lower it? wishful thinking


Like 1.25 per mile.It depends on how much uber want to settle


----------



## KMANDERSON

Bart McCoy said:


> like what? raise rates to $1.75 and include a stipulation that they can't lower it? wishful thinking


Is a 1.75 to much for a passager to much to pay.lol


----------



## live2fly

Uber is biting the hand that feeds them (drivers), if this continues that_* hand *_will slap Uber in the face and bring it down to it's knees.. Uber has a reputation to maintain, the drivers are the one's who make that happen but only if Uber can obtain and kept intelligent and courteous driver, if not they will become nothing more than a glorified taxi company with an app.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Yes, it does not address "timeouts" which are a huge issue. Uber could effectively deactivate by instituting longer and longer timeouts. It appears they can still do that.


I really don't have a problem with the 'time-outs'... and the reason is that the system has no way of knowing if a driver is actively letting a request expire, or if they just forgot log-out of the app while they decided to do some grocery shopping... and too many drivers still stay online when they are on a highway doing 60+MPH - which is always a recipe for getting ride requests from too far away.


live2fly said:


> Uber is biting the hand that feeds them (drivers), if this continues that_* hand *_will slap Uber in the face and bring it down to it's knees.. Uber has a reputation to maintain, the drivers are the one's who make that happen but only if Uber can obtain and kept intelligent and courteous driver, if not they will become nothing more than a glorified taxi company with an app.


uh... "_a glorified taxi company with an app_"... at half the cost of a taxi!


----------



## Shea47

Frankly if you were employees instead of freelance Uber would have to increase rate that would make Uber the same cost as a taxi and drivers would not make enough and riders would not use the service any longer.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Shea47 said:


> Frankly if you were employees instead of freelance Uber would have to increase rate that would make Uber the same cost as a taxi and drivers would not make enough and riders would not use the service any longer.


Maybe - maybe not. There would certainly be fewer drivers - but you're overlooking how much consumers love the convenience - and the ability to get a ride within minutes - especially in areas not served (or not served well) by taxis - like the many, many suburbs we drive in.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Shea47 said:


> Frankly if you were employees instead of freelance Uber would have to increase rate that would make Uber the same cost as a taxi and drivers would not make enough and riders would not use the service any longer.


That means you will make more money. Don't let uber trick you with this whole "more rides mean more money nonsense". If the rates were taxi rates 2.00 per mile you would make more money with 4 rides than you would with 20 rides (at current rates). Right now uber is the only one making money off uberX.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

Darrell said:


> Nope, the lawyers get their 40 % off the top and the settlement was for 84 million with 16 million coming should Uber go public. That means the lawyers get 33.6 million of that. The drivers then split 50.4 million by 385,000 = $131.


Before taxes...the $131 has to be reported as either income or revenue. So factor another 10-20%. Drivers will net out about a days pay. Hope it was worth it. Are we still gung-ho fans of SLR?


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

Undermensch said:


> Does that qualify as a Haiku or have I had too many beers?


I'd say:
1) Yes, let's give it to him
2) Yes, but probably not enough to swallow this bullshyte


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> Before taxes...the $131 has to be reported as either income or revenue. So factor another 10-20%. Drivers will net out about a days pay. Hope it was worth it. Are we still gung-ho fans of SLR?


Lots of drivers looking in from the outside feel the same way you do.
I'm not one of them. I understand class-actions and their purpose.
SLR expressed it well:

_...if we chose not to settle this case, we faced risks. 
We faced the risk that a jury in San Francisco (where Uber is everywhere and quite popular) may not side with the drivers over Uber.

We faced a risk that the Ninth Circuit may disagree with the district court on his rulings certifying the case as a class action and holding Uber's arbitration clause to be unenforceable. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had disagreed with the district court on either of these two points, then the vast majority of Uber drivers would never receive anything at all for these claims and the non-monetary changes that are being made as a result of this settlement would not occur. Just recently, the Ninth Circuit issued an unusual order agreeing to review the district court's class certification order right away, possibly before the upcoming trial (and may have issued an order to delay the trial). And even if the Ninth Circuit agreed with us and affirmed the district court's rulings regarding class certification and arbitration, Uber made clear it would try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been quite friendly in recent years to companies using arbitration agreements to prevent individuals from banding together to hold companies accountable to complying with the laws on a classwide basis.

...the payments drivers [in CA and MA] will receive under this settlement are significant. We have calculated the estimated distribution for drivers who have driven different amounts of miles with Uber passengers in the car. Drivers falling into the category of those who have driven the greatest number of miles (more than 25,000) may receive $8,000 or more on average (if they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause, and if the claim rate for the settlement is what is expected, approximately half). Drivers who drove fewer miles will receive lower shares. The formula accounts also for whether the drivers worked in California or Massachusetts (more of the settlement is allocated for California), whether they were included in the certified class (those who were will receive double credit for their miles), and whether they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause (those who did will also receive double credit).

We are very proud of this achievement and look forward to these changes being implemented for the benefit of Uber drivers.

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Adelaide Pagano_​


----------



## Bob Reynolds

Shea47 said:


> Frankly if you were employees instead of freelance Uber would have to increase rate that would make Uber the same cost as a taxi and drivers would not make enough and riders would not use the service any longer.


And where would these riders go for their cheap rides?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Proposed #UberLAWSUIT settlement is a positive development for Drivers *16.8%*
No/Minimal Effect: Proposed settlement is neither a positive nor a setback for Drivers *29.8%*
Proposed #UberLAWSUIT settlement is a setback for Drivers *53.4%*
Anyone else see the irony in that even though the vast majority of drivers want to remain Independent Contractors - and this settlement agreement provides important gains for Uber drivers - 53.4% of those voting in this poll also believe that the settlement is a setback for drivers?


----------



## Ca$h4

1/3 of article is public. ( Need bucks to play in legal ecosystem.) Still worth reading. No clear winner or loser IMHO.
*
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202755784995/Uber-Deal-Signals-Open-Season-on-Gig-Economy?kw=Uber Deal Signals Open Season on Gig Economy&cn=20160422&pt=Afternoon Update&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder*

* Uber Deal Signals Open Season on Gig Economy 

Ben Hancock, The Recorder
April 22, 2016 | 1 Comments 

share
print
reprints








Shannon Liss-Riordan
Jason Doiy / The Recorder
SAN FRANCISCO - The war may be over for Uber Technologies Inc. But by cutting a check for tens of millions of dollars to settle a slew of threatening labor class actions, it may have just bought the gig economy a whole new set of legal battles.

Lawyers say the $84 million settlement that Uber reached-which can rise to as much as $100 million if the company goes public or is acquired and increases in value-is like a flashing neon invitation for the plaintiffs bar to keep waging the fight.

Related Articles:

*


*

Uber Strikes Expensive Peace Pact With Drivers

Ninth Circuit Halts Uber Driver Suit
*
*And by failing to resolve the core issue of whether on-demand workers are independent contractors or employees, the Uber settlement leaves plenty of grist for the mill.

"I don't think this does anything to alleviate any of the litigation," said Todd Scherwin, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Fisher & Phillips who represents employers. "I think other smaller companies that are part of the sharing economy were hoping for a definite result here."

Scherwin said that he anticipates that the large settlement will entice other plaintiff lawyers to "take a crack" at enterprises with business models similar to Uber's. "Those are big dollar signs," he said.

Daniel Hutchinson, a partner at plaintiffs firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, agreed. "Certainly to the extent that this leaves a lack of clarity on these issues, I certainly think there will be people who look to resolve" them in other cases, Hutchinson said.

Daniel Handman of employer firm Hirschfeld Kraemer was even more blunt. "I really think that this case was just the tip of the iceberg," he said.

There are dozens of other cases pending in California courts against a cast of app-enabled, on-demand companies. Instacart, GrubHub and DoorDash have all come in the crosshairs.

Steven Davidoff Solomon, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy, was less convinced that the Uber settlement will stoke more litigation in the "share economy" space.

"It does leave a lot unsettled," Davidoff Solomon said. "But given the rise of arbitration agreements &#8230; most of this will be funneled out of the court." Companies eyeing the Uber battle, and a similar suit against Lyft Inc., have retooled their agreements to make sure they are air-tight, he said.

The end result is that the fight will ultimately have to be addressed by the Legislature, Davidoff Solomon said, positing that this may be better anyway. "The courts are not well-equipped to deal with this issue."

In obvious ways, the Uber settlement is a big win for the gig economy's chief antagonist: Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss Riordan. She founded her firm just seven years ago, and before launching the cases in 2013 was unknown in the Northern California legal scene.

But by allowing Uber to continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors, the litigation also clearly falls short of Liss-Riordan's original goal. In an April 2015 interview, she professed a conviction that the companies had both an obligation and a clear ability to provide workers with basic benefits.

*


*

1

2

3

VIEW FULL ARTICLE
*
*Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=12027...nals-Open-Season-on-Gig-Economy#ixzz46gp113kv
*


----------



## Another Uber Driver

live2fly said:


> they will become nothing more than a glorified taxi company with an app.


^^^What is with the use....oh, never mind, he has it close enough.............\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/



Michael - Cleveland said:


> uh... "_a glorified taxi company with an app_"... at half the cost of a taxi!





Shea47 said:


> Uber the same cost as a taxi and riders would not use the service any longer.


Uber does not offer taxis anywhere in Kansas or Missouri, but it does offer them, here. Uber users here use Uber Taxi all the time. The first Uber that appeared here was Uber Black. People used it for several reasons, the major reason's being that which the below quoted poster describes. The second Uber to appear here was Uber Taxi. Uber users were so happy that it was here. Now, they could pay taxi rates instead of limousine rates for their ride and would not need cash and could know immediately if they would get a ride. If the application showed, and if it still shows, "NO __________(fill in appropriate level of Uber) AVAILABLE", the user knows to look elsewhere for a ride. Uber's key selling points are convenience and information.

If Uber came into a Major Metropolitan Area, took over all taxi call assignment and offered only Uber Taxi, Uber Black/SUV and Uber Select, people would still use the service. Before, they could not get a ride, or, had no idea when they would get one. Now, either they get a ride or they know right away that they will not get one for a while.

If there is one thing that Uber has proved is that the market for ground transportation for hire is far greater than anyone ever had imagined. The reason that not as many people used to use it was that they could not get it. Uber has brought it to them.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> you're overlooking how much consumers love the convenience - and the ability to get a ride within minutes -


.......either that, or they can be aware immediately that _*thar' ain't no ride available right about now*_, so that they can proceed immediately to make other arrangements................

The convenience thing works so well that I have more than a few customers who are street hails use Uber to pay me. It is a dicey process, as you would think that since the customer is no more than five feet from me, if he sends a summons, I will be the one to receive it. Usually, I am, but, every once in a while, it does not work that way. Fortunately for the user, if he cancels in less than five minutes, Uber does not penalise him. All that he need do is try again. It has always worked the second time for me, but, some of my customers who have done this before have reported having to try three times. The convenience of the foregoing is:

1) The transaction now becomes seamless. Upon my arrival at the customer's destination, all that he need do is get out of the cab. This is important if he is late for a meeting, is about to miss a train or wants to be on the Eastern Shuttle that left one hour past. He need not monkey with and wait for the in-cab terminal. He need not fish for cash, wait for change and for me to write a receipt or for the meter to print one that he will lose. This brings me to..............

2) Everyone here hates the meter receipts. They are too small and too easy to lose. Uber e-Mails its user a receipt. If he is going to be re-imbursed, he need not physically submit a paper receipt. All that he need to is forward the Uber e-Mail receipt to his Accounting Department.  He can do it from home or from his Smart Telephone while he is on his way home from the airport.

3) More than a few people like to have only one place to go when it comes to reviewing transportation expenses. Uber allows for that quite nicely.

This is coming from someone who is *NOT* Uber's biggest fan. Still, if Uber is going to give me customers, I am not going to say "no". If Uber is going to provide me with a means to advance my business, I am going to use it. If Uber is going to provide me with a means to render better service to my customers, I am going to take advantage of it. I am not that crazy about all of this technology and all of these cords and contraptions that I need to drive a hack, these days. Yes, I do long for the days when all that I needed was a hack licence, a set of keys, a pen and a trip sheet, but _*them thar' days is gone an' they ain't a-comin' back*_. Adapt, or die, Jack. I choose to survive.


----------



## driveLA

this lawsuit was all wrong to begin with.

we shouldn't be fighting to be classified as employees we should be fighting for more rights as independent contractors and better fares.

pretty pointless "victory" but i think someone that aint clueless would get a better result down the line. just moving way too slow.


----------



## Heraldo

What do you expect? Do you drive for uber as a bait and switch tactic. Yes, I'm a contractor but wait till my lawyer gets a hold of you.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I really don't have a problem with the 'time-outs'... and the reason is that the system has no way of knowing if a driver is actively letting a request expire, or if they just forgot log-out of the app while they decided to do some grocery shopping... and too many drivers still stay online when they are on a highway doing 60+MPH - which is always a recipe for getting ride requests from too far away.
> 
> uh... "_a glorified taxi company with an app_"... at half the cost of a taxi!


I have a problem with the timeouts. They are not in any way necessary. They could log you off instead of a timeout, and that would solve the problem of people who forgot to log off. Time-outs are petty and punitive and serve no one. Alternatively, Uber could institute a "decline request" button that would send the request on to the next driver.


----------



## SD_Expedition

driveLA said:


> this lawsuit was all wrong to begin with.
> 
> we shouldn't be fighting to be classified as employees we should be fighting for more rights as independent contractors and better fares.
> 
> pretty pointless "victory" but i think someone that aint clueless would get a better result down the line. just moving way too slow.


The lawsuit is an attempt to set Uber straight in regards to treating IC's as employees. If they treat you like an employee, they should be responsibe for paying you as one. Otherwise, this is a fight to push Uber back, as to have Uber treat their IC's as IC's, not employees.

Make sense?


----------



## aeiou_-

driveLA said:


> this lawsuit was all wrong to begin with.
> 
> we shouldn't be fighting to be classified as employees we should be fighting for more rights as independent contractors and better fares.
> 
> pretty pointless "victory" but i think someone that aint clueless would get a better result down the line. just moving way too slow.


I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, I don't think the conversation had developed enough yet when the lawsuit was initiated. And frankly, there's a real lack of organization within the driver pool, even still. Why are we the only ones that have to play by the rules? Uber is not regulated, they get away with it. I feel the argument should have been, "stop treating us like employees" rather than "make us employees".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

driveLA said:


> this lawsuit was all wrong to begin with.
> 
> we shouldn't be fighting to be classified as employees we should be fighting for more rights as independent contractors and better fares.
> 
> pretty pointless "victory" but i think someone that aint clueless would get a better result down the line. just moving way too slow.


You miss the point. The threat of losing the classification battle is what brings Uber to the table in order to force them to change how they treat independent contractors.

It worked.

It cost them $100mil+ in this case alone - plus legal fees plus the administrative fees...
when all they had to do in the first place to avoid these costs was live up to the agreement they already had with drivers over their independent status (re: acceptance rates, deactivations and due process).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> I have a problem with the timeouts. They are not in any way necessary. They could log you off instead of a timeout, and that would solve the problem of people who forgot to log off. Time-outs are petty and punitive and serve no one. Alternatively, Uber could institute a "decline request" button that would send the request on to the next driver.


I agree.


----------



## aeiou_-

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You miss the point. The threat of losing the classification battle is what brings Uber to the table in order to force them to change how they treat independent contractors.
> 
> It worked.
> 
> It cost them $100mil+ in this case alone - plus legal fees plus the administrative fees...
> when all they had to do in the first place to avoid these costs was live up to the agreement they already had with drivers over their independent status (re: acceptance rates, deactivations and due process).


The problem is that nothing changed. They are only finally admitting that tips are not included. And you can not get deactivated for not accepting trips. You can still get deactivated for everything else, but now they warn us. They've always warned us.


----------



## driveLA

SD_Expedition said:


> The lawsuit is an attempt to set Uber straight in regards to treating IC's as employees. If they treat you like an employee, they should be resposibe for paying you as one. Otherwise, this is a fight to push Uber back, as to have Uber treat their IC's as IC's, not employees.
> 
> Make sense?


they are doing it all wrong because they are not acknowledging the most of the details as to how we should be seen as independent in the sharing economy i.e. - having control over our fares, etc.

all this accomplished was wasting more time in uber's favor to ignore and continue stupid shit like pool, stacked pings, ignoring safety, stupid bonus requirements, changing fares, etc until someone files a lawsuit that acknowledges stuff that actually matters


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Cres said:


> The problem is that nothing changed. They are only finally admitting that tips are not included. And you can not get deactivated for not accepting trips. You can still get deactivated for everything else, but now they warn us. They've always warned us.


If you don't think tossing out deactivation over acceptance rate is a change - then you're not familiar with Uber. As far as other reasons for de-activation: GOOD! I don't want my daughter getting a driver with a 2.7 star rating. Hell - I don't want a driver with a 2.7 rating. Not everyone is cut-out to drive other people. Not everyone has a car that is up to snuff for driving other people around. I want them weeded out. I want drivers who receive more complaints than the average driver weeded out. Who WOULDN'T want this? Just because you can breathe and have a license doesn't mean you are entitled to drive for a TNC.


----------



## driveLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If you don't think tossing out deactivation over acceptance rate is a change - then you're not familiar with Uber. As far as other reasons for de-activation: GOOD! I don't want my daughter getting a driver with a 2.7 star rating. Hell - I don't want a driver with a 2.7 rating. Not everyone is cut-out to drive other people. Not everyone has a car that is up to snuff for driving other people around. I want them weeded out. I want drivers who receive more complaints than the average driver weeded out. Who WOULDN'T want this? Just because you can breathe and have a license doesn't mean you are entitled to drive for a TNC.


it is not a change because now they just time you out for not accepting pings. they were actually already doing that before the settlement.

everything else is going to be exactly the same.

but most importantly we are still gonna get paid whatever shit fare they want to pay.


----------



## ginseng41

Does anyone know what the payout is supposed to be paying for? Tops? Expenses? Or whar?


----------



## aeiou_-

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If you don't think tossing out deactivation over acceptance rate is a change - then you're not familiar with Uber. As far as other reasons for de-activation: GOOD! I don't want my daughter getting a driver with a 2.7 star rating. Hell - I don't want a driver with a 2.7 rating. Not everyone is cut-out to drive other people. Not everyone has a car that is up to snuff for driving other people around. I want them weeded out. I want drivers who receive more complaints than the average driver weeded out. Who WOULDN'T want this? Just because you can breathe and have a license doesn't mean you are entitled to drive for a TNC.


I hardly feel it's a change in the way they impose regulation over how we operate. Specifically, of course, it's step forward. Overall, it's irrelevant because they'll find a way around that. The language did not change.

For example, being cited for professionalism when one cancels legitimately. I have proof of receiving this negative feedback. Following every step in the uber policy regarding cancelations and still being cited. They cite you for following the rules, and penalize you for stepping out of line.


----------



## Txchick

observer said:


> Ends up going to court in 2-3 years.


That's correct, Uber got a delay. Trial would have not been in June of 2016.


----------



## Txchick

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Proposed #UberLAWSUIT settlement is a positive development for Drivers *16.8%*
> No/Minimal Effect: Proposed settlement is neither a positive nor a setback for Drivers *29.8%*
> Proposed #UberLAWSUIT settlement is a setback for Drivers *53.4%*
> Anyone else see the irony in that even though the vast majority of drivers want to remain Independent Contractors - and this settlement agreement provides important gains for Uber drivers - 53.4% of those voting in this poll also believe that the settlement is a setback for drivers?


Because it is!! http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-settlement-what-drivers-will-get-2016-4


----------



## Txchick

ginseng41 said:


> Does anyone know what the payout is supposed to be paying for? Tops? Expenses? Or whar?


http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-settlement-what-drivers-will-get-2016-4


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ginseng41 said:


> Does anyone know what the payout is supposed to be paying for? Tops? Expenses? Or whar?


Most of it is going to pay the lawyer's fee.  That is always how it works in class action suits. A huge chunk of the "clients' share" goes to pay the lawyer's expenses, court fees, deposition fees............................. A little bit goes to the lead plaintiffs. The rest goes to pay for vouchers for the rest of the class. These vouchers will give you a free twelve inch Subway when you buy one six inch at regular price.

Yes, I read what the lawyer supposedly stated. "Lawyer", "liar", what it the difference?


----------



## ginseng41

Oh I know that, but what is uber admitting to having done wrong


----------



## Osamah

Driving is seriously the funnest part of the Uber experience.


----------



## Txchick

ginseng41 said:


> Oh I know that, but what is uber admitting to having done wrong


Nothing that's the problem!!


----------



## ginseng41

Then why are they agreeing to shell out so much money? It has to be for damages or misdeeds or something. This is not good publicity they are attempting to buy


----------



## Uber-Doober

LADriver said:


> I feel your pain. I'm extremely disappointed in SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for even going in the settlement direction. Her background boasted of getting employee status for the Fed-Ex Ground employees that were miss-classified. I thought she was a fighter for us UBER slaves. But, NOOOOOOOO!!!
> 
> She stated in other news reports that she feared losing the case to a San Francisco Jury! Are you kidding me? So what! If she lost the case, we'd still be in the same stinking boat we're in now. This would have been an epic jury trial. With a legal resolution to the Gig Economy workers' status, not just UBER drivers.
> 
> This settlement is not only a joke, it is a FARCE! The lawyers walk away with 33% of the settlement, while each driver/slave receives $174. I think Judge Chen should start throwing the "B" word around when it comes to ride-sharing settlements, as in $1 Billion.
> 
> I'm so pissed right now I can't see straight. So, I won't be able to drive tomorrow. Thanks SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN for costing me a day of work!


^^^
Yeh, Riordan is going for the settlement because if she lost in front of a jury in SF, then she wouldn't get her money. This way, she and her firm still get their 1/3 and end up wealthy from just one case.


----------



## Txchick

ginseng41 said:


> Then why are they agreeing to shell out so much money? It has to be for damages or misdeeds or something. This is not good publicity they are attempting to buy


As chi1cabby posted on Twitter: 
#SelloutShannon
The Non-monetary components of #UberLAWSUIT Settlement sunset in 2 years


----------



## Txchick

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Yeh, Riordan is going for the settlement because if she lost in front of a jury in SF, then she wouldn't get her money. This way, she and her firm still get their 1/3 and end up wealthy from just one case.


----------



## ginseng41

Oh I definitely get why she settled. I realize the non cash parts go say just in time for their IPO. Why did they agree to pay anything though?


----------



## Txchick

ginseng41 said:


> Oh I definitely get why she settled. I realize the non cash parts go say just in time for their IPO. Why did they agree to pay anything though?


Exactly!


----------



## Leo.

I bet some judge is going to get some $ out of nowhere in her Panama bank account.


----------



## Avb

Over 300,000 drivers just in two states????? Where do they get these numbers from? At any given moment in Metro Boston I can count the number of drivers and it will be less than 500. So there probably 1000 active drivers who work full time of any in the whole state of Massachusetts. There are probably another few thousand who work part time but 300,000+? And what is this bullshit of getting paid only for the "miles driving with a passenger"??? What about driving to customers ??? So if we're not going to use the mileage on the tax forms we filed how about the state pays us back the taxes we paid for those miles. Wtf


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I really don't have a problem with the 'time-outs'... and the reason is that the system has no way of knowing if a driver is actively letting a request expire, or if they just forgot log-out of the app while they decided to do some grocery shopping... and too many drivers still stay online when they are on a highway doing 60+MPH - which is always a recipe for getting ride requests from too far away.
> 
> uh... "_a glorified taxi company with an app_"... at half the cost of a taxi!


I have no problem with being taken offline, which is reasonable if I miss a couple of pings--maybe I forgot to go offline or am.not in hearing of my phone? But being allowed to do timeouts, with no limit?

If I go to check the mail and get pinged a couple times, get taken offline, and come in and realise and want to go back online, I should be able to. The way I read this is Uber could take me offline as long as it wants--2 days, a week? What's to stop them?

Taking someone offline because they may not realize they are online, or they walked away from the phone for a while is reasonable. But not allowing them to go back online is not. Since the intent of the agreement is to not penalize drivers for not taking trips they don't want, timeouts go completely counter to that. Taking a driver offline does make sense. Not allowing them back for various arbitrary amounts of time (have read 2 minutes to 24 hours here--for me it's 20 mins although all my CSR communication say 10 mins) cannot be justified.

Even the language is ridiculous--"it seems you are nit accepting trips at this time"--well I am, just not the 5 mile away ones you are sending me. The only reason I'm not now is I'm in timeout!


----------



## Avb

There are just so many unanswered questions. If we are contractors then why the **** can't we set our own fates and pick up whichever customers we want and receive tips? And why döner have to trust our jobs to a biased rating system. A corrupt system in which one person can give you a 1 star rating for getting stuck in traffic....


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If you don't think tossing out deactivation over acceptance rate is a change - then you're not familiar with Uber. As far as other reasons for de-activation: GOOD! I don't want my daughter getting a driver with a 2.7 star rating. Hell - I don't want a driver with a 2.7 rating. Not everyone is cut-out to drive other people. Not everyone has a car that is up to snuff for driving other people around. I want them weeded out. I want drivers who receive more complaints than the average driver weeded out. Who WOULDN'T want this? Just because you can breathe and have a license doesn't mean you are entitled to drive for a TNC.


If Uber would simply send the pax a driver and the pax could ALSO reject the driver and have it go to the next, that would solve that problem. Low rated drivers would only get work when there were few drivers around.

Right now the pax are also at mercy of the system and if they don't want a driver but keep getting them after canceling, are stuck. Both sides need a decline button. The only solution right now is for the driver to go offline while the pax reorders.


----------



## Avb

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I have no problem with being taken offline, which is reasonable if I miss a couple of pings--maybe I forgot to go offline or am.not in hearing of my phone? But being allowed to do timeouts, with no limit?
> 
> If I go to check the mail and get pinged a couple times, get taken offline, and come in and realise and want to go back online, I should be able to. The way I read this is Uber could take me offline as long as it wants--2 days, a week? What's to stop them?
> 
> Taking someone offline because they may not realize they are online, or they walked away from the phone for a while is reasonable. But not allowing them to go back online is not. Since the intent of the agreement is to not penalize drivers for not taking trips they don't want, timeouts go completely counter to that. Taking a driver offline does make sense. Not allowing them back for various arbitrary amounts of time (have read 2 minutes to 24 hours here--for me it's 20 mins although all my CSR communication say 10 mins) cannot be justified.
> 
> Even the language is ridiculous--"it seems you are nit accepting trips at this time"--well I am, just not the 5 mile away ones you are sending me. The only reason I'm not now is I'm in timeout!


I completely agree with you. It's a scam. I get logged of for 4 minutes a minimum of 5x a day. It's up to us who we pick up. We shouldn't have to drive 5 miles or "13 minutes" away two towns over. That's freaking ridiculous. Uber says "it disrupts the system and makes it inneficient." Oh yea? What about when riders cancel on us? I get canceled on 4x a day. Especially when you're on your way or you get there and then you miss surge... Doesn't that disrupt the system?? Do the riders get suspended for cancelling rides?? What a crock.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Avb said:


> I completely agree with you. It's a scam. I get logged of for 4 minutes a minimum of 5x a day. It's up to us who we pick up. We shouldn't have to drive 5 miles or "13 minutes" away two towns over. That's freaking ridiculous. Uber says "it disrupts the system and makes it inneficient." Oh yea? What about when riders cancel on us? I get canceled on 4x a day. Especially when you're on your way or you get there and then you miss surge... Doesn't that disrupt the system?? Do the riders get suspended for cancelling rides?? What a crock.


Another one of the enlightened.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Lots of drivers looking in from the outside feel the same way you do.
> I'm not one of them. I understand class-actions and their purpose.
> SLR expressed it well:
> 
> _...if we chose not to settle this case, we faced risks.
> We faced the risk that a jury in San Francisco (where Uber is everywhere and quite popular) may not side with the drivers over Uber.
> 
> We faced a risk that the Ninth Circuit may disagree with the district court on his rulings certifying the case as a class action and holding Uber's arbitration clause to be unenforceable. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had disagreed with the district court on either of these two points, then the vast majority of Uber drivers would never receive anything at all for these claims and the non-monetary changes that are being made as a result of this settlement would not occur. Just recently, the Ninth Circuit issued an unusual order agreeing to review the district court's class certification order right away, possibly before the upcoming trial (and may have issued an order to delay the trial). And even if the Ninth Circuit agreed with us and affirmed the district court's rulings regarding class certification and arbitration, Uber made clear it would try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been quite friendly in recent years to companies using arbitration agreements to prevent individuals from banding together to hold companies accountable to complying with the laws on a classwide basis.
> 
> ...the payments drivers [in CA and MA] will receive under this settlement are significant. We have calculated the estimated distribution for drivers who have driven different amounts of miles with Uber passengers in the car. Drivers falling into the category of those who have driven the greatest number of miles (more than 25,000) may receive $8,000 or more on average (if they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause, and if the claim rate for the settlement is what is expected, approximately half). Drivers who drove fewer miles will receive lower shares. The formula accounts also for whether the drivers worked in California or Massachusetts (more of the settlement is allocated for California), whether they were included in the certified class (those who were will receive double credit for their miles), and whether they opted out of Uber's arbitration clause (those who did will also receive double credit).
> 
> We are very proud of this achievement and look forward to these changes being implemented for the benefit of Uber drivers.
> 
> Shannon Liss-Riordan
> Adelaide Pagano_​


Are you aware we gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from this settlement ?

Nothing Uber "conceded" has any teeth. Even this supposed driver association has a specific mention of it not being a union.

When Shannon got it certified as a class action she became the lawyer for all the drivers. However the only thing that matter to us drivers is getting us classified as employees. If we don't get classified as employees then we get NO MONEY WHATSOEVER FOR REIMBURSEMENTS. Period. End of story. We get no minimum wage. We get no overtime. We get NO LABOR PROTECTION. We get absolutely no protection from this horrible company that has constantly and consistently done thing to make our jobs better.

For Uber, to agree to pay out $100 million dollars it knows that it is misclassifying us. However, if they just pay that amount out and don't have to actually call us employees, they are saving many more millions in penalties for not paying us overtime, minimum wage, etc etc. The figures I seen valued our claim at a Billion dollars!!

Now, if this settlement goes through, we get NOTHING GOING FORWARD!!

This settlement simply amounts to a payoff. Yes, if Shannon loses she gets nothing however the employee classification is this is the ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS TO US. If we win employee status, then we can force every other issue they have conceded plus many more things !!

If we don't get employee status then Uber can continue to lower the rates and raise the bullshit booking fee as much as they want, for as long as they want. Nothing we can do can stop that. Nothing else matters. We will continue making less, and they will continue making more.

Is this what you want ?

Who gives a shit if you can turn the app and on when you want when you're making peanuts ?


----------



## Sdtransporter619

Undermensch said:


> That's why I was saying earlier that I regret opting out of binding arbitration and the reasons I regret it are:
> 
> 
> I'm never going to sue Uber for anything - Face it, it's not gonna happen
> All that opting out does is allow some jackass lawyer, who I'm never going to meet, to file a suit and include me in the class of plaintiffs that allows them to collect a bigger settlement, of which the lawyers get 95% of the money
> Thanks, but no thanks. Drivers will see maybe $3.20 from this, each.


That $3.20 is really all we see once you calculate drivers expenses plus vehicle deprication we are averaging $3 to $5 a hour. Still nobody talking about them paying drivers for lost revunues due to a lowered fair that we were never informed about or had a option to disapprove or opt out of. They took thousands out of our pockets. Drive 7 miles 15 minutes to pick up someone take them 3 miles another 15 minutes to make $2.40. While Uber corporate sits and watches it's minions keep screwing themselves.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Shannon has a fiduciary duty to us first. And she has not kept that duty at all with this ridiculous settlement AND the ridiculous settlement she tried putting past the judge for Lyft that the judge rejected already. I pray he rejects this ridiculous settlement as well.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

The ONLY thing that can stop Uber, even starting tomorrow, from taking 99% and giving us 1% is us being employees and having a union contract and Uber being FORCED to give us atleast minimum wage AND reimbursements. If we are independent contractors, then Uber can do ANYTHING it wants at any time, as it already is.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> If we don't get classified as employees then we get NO MONEY WHATSOEVER FOR REIMBURSEMENTS. Period. End of story. We get no minimum wage. We get no overtime. We get NO LABOR PROTECTION.


So basically we get the exact same thing as we got when we 1st started for Uber, an app and some customers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

driveLA said:


> it is not a change because now they just time you out for not accepting pings. they were actually already doing that before the settlement.
> 
> everything else is going to be exactly the same.
> 
> but most importantly we are still gonna get paid whatever shit fare they want to pay.


<shrug> Looking at a change - be it small or huge and still saying it is not a change is pretty pointless - and there's really no discussion to be had when someone is blind to the change. I understand that you feel these changes will not effect you - and I disagree with your opinion. But there is no argument to be had over whether changes have been made. Only on how much of an impact (good or bad) they will have on drivers.

Yes - 'time-outs' were used before (and they make sense from a 'systems' perspective based on the apps current features (or lack of features). But drivers have been constantly, continually and repeatedly threatened with de-activation for not accepting ride requests (cherry-picking) - and that will not happen anymore under this agreement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> The ONLY thing that can stop Uber, even starting tomorrow, from taking 99% and giving us 1% is us being employees and having a union contract and Uber being FORCED to give us atleast minimum wage AND reimbursements. If we are independent contractors, then Uber can do ANYTHING it wants at any time, as it already is.


Yup... and WE can do anything we want to... like drive when we want, maintain our cars when we want, choose who we will provide transportation to, etc.

If you want to be an employee of a transportation company, please feel free to apply for a jobs with companies that hire people as employees. But it's a little pointless to sign up with a TNC as an Independent Contractor and then complain that you are not an employee.

The fight in the courts is not to force the TNCs to make drivers employees -
it is to force them to make drivers employees IF they continue to exert employer control over drivers OR stop exerting those employer controls.

The TNCs want to have it both ways: control drivers as if they were employees - but compensate them as Independent Contractors.
*Class Action lawsuits are what will force the TNCs to make the hard choices they have been avoiding since their inception*.

Kudos to atty's like SLR who use the club of EMPLOYER status to force the TNCs to make changes.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ginseng41 said:


> Oh I know that, but what is uber admitting to having done wrong


Uber's driver agreement states that drivers have the right to accept or decline transportation services to riders. But their practice has been to deactivate (fire) drivers who did not accept a certain mysterious number of ride requests. With respect to acceptance of ride requests, Uber will no longer violate their own agreement with drivers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If Uber would simply send the pax a driver and the pax could ALSO reject the driver and have it go to the next, that would solve that problem. Low rated drivers would only get work when there were few drivers around.
> 
> Right now the pax are also at mercy of the system and if they don't want a driver but keep getting them after canceling, are stuck. Both sides need a decline button. The only solution right now is for the driver to go offline while the pax reorders.


Unlike drivers, riders have the option to cancel a driver within 5 minutes (no limit in some markets) without penalty - as many times as they want. The whole point of the system is to send the closest driver in order to provide the fastest service (and does anyone doubt that a rider would rather have a 4.6 rated driver arrive in 4 minutes rather than a 4.9 rated driver arrive in 15 minutes?). The rating and deactivation system of drivers is supposed to make sure there that there aren't a lot of driver's on the road with a rating much lower than the average driver in that market. I agree that it would be preferable for rider and driver apps to have a DECLINE option. But as a driver, I already get more than enough 'CANCELS' that are frustrating as hell. A DECLINE option in the rider app would increase those cancels by a lot.


----------



## Coachman

Avb said:


> What about when riders cancel on us? I get canceled on 4x a day. Especially when you're on your way or you get there and then you miss surge... Doesn't that disrupt the system?? Do the riders get suspended for cancelling rides?? What a crock.


Riders who abuse the cancel feature get put in time outs. That may not be equitable justice but at least it's something.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I have no problem with being taken offline, which is reasonable if I miss a couple of pings--maybe I forgot to go offline or am.not in hearing of my phone? But being allowed to do timeouts, with no limit?
> 
> If I go to check the mail and get pinged a couple times, get taken offline, and come in and realise and want to go back online, I should be able to. The way I read this is Uber could take me offline as long as it wants--2 days, a week? What's to stop them?
> 
> Taking someone offline because they may not realize they are online, or they walked away from the phone for a while is reasonable. But not allowing them to go back online is not. Since the intent of the agreement is to not penalize drivers for not taking trips they don't want, timeouts go completely counter to that. Taking a driver offline does make sense. Not allowing them back for various arbitrary amounts of time (have read 2 minutes to 24 hours here--for me it's 20 mins although all my CSR communication say 10 mins) cannot be justified.
> 
> Even the language is ridiculous--"it seems you are nit accepting trips at this time"--well I am, just not the 5 mile away ones you are sending me. The only reason I'm not now is I'm in timeout!


I agree with how you look at it. Right now - for me - what you describe as 'reasonable' (being taken offline but still able to log back in right away) is what I've seen in my own experience. <shrug> If I couldn't log back in I'd be pretty annoyed. But still, I could understand it if it were a 10 minute time-out because it was during a surge to the right of me and I was ignoring all non-surge requests from the left of me. Uber is trying to make sure that the drivers displayed as available within x minutes in the rider app are actually available - that may not be what we as drivers want - but it IS what's best for the whole system.

So, will Uber give me a 2 day long time out if my driving pattern is to accept only surge requests while ignoring all non-surge requests?
It could happen.
If it does, I'd be really annoyed (and probably storm into the office). But I also understand their perspective and how they are trying to figure out how to maintain a reasonable service level for all riders in a market - not just those in surge areas.
They haven't figured it out yet.
When the app was first used to display surge, the entire market would surge... then 'regions'... and now very specific neighborhoods/areas. They are clearly working towards finding ways to improve the systems. But one of the unintended consequences of surging very specific areas - each with a different surge amount, is that drivers cherry-pick more. And when we cherry-pick, the service level to riders declines.
We are still looking at a mass-market system that is barely 3 years old and is growing. Most of the changes I see have been for the better. Uber has a lot to lose if they don't continue to make improvements.

At the same time - IMO - any driver who think that the system was developed and is designed to make a driver happy is deluding himself. It's up to us to make the most of it that we can - and push for things that serve drivers interests.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you aware we gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from this settlement ?


Sorry - I stopped reading after you spoke for me.
I reject a LOT of rides in order to maximize my earnings and minimize my dead miles.
Uber has sent me countless threats of deactivation for this practice.
Under this agreement, they will no longer do that - and cannot deactivate me for the practice.
That is a HUGE change for me.


> Is this what you want ?


Yes.


> Who gives a shit if you can turn the app and on when you want when you're making peanuts ?


I personally earn between $400 and $1,000/wk driving only after-work on weekdays, and weekend evenings.
That may be peanuts to you - but it's a significant $20,000 - $50,000/yr to me (for working during times when I would otherwise be on my couch watching TV).
YMMV - I understand that driving may not serve you the same way it serves me - and I hope that my small voice will help improve driving for everyone.
I respect people who express an opinion about how driving effects them personally - but have little interest in hearing from those who assume that their personal circumstances, results and opinions are the same as the other half million drivers in the US.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Coachman said:


> Riders who abuse the cancel feature get put in time outs. That may not be equitable justice but at least it's something.


Do they really?! I've never seen that here... I hope that is US policy!


----------



## Coachman

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Do they really?! I've never seen that here... I hope that is US policy!


In particular they're targeting riders who request during surge then cancel at the last minute and re-request hoping to catch the driver at a non-surge rate. I had one rider tell me he was put in a 30 minute time out after canceling two surge rides.


----------



## ginseng41

Coachman said:


> In particular they're targeting riders who request during surge then cancel at the last minute and re-request hoping to catch the driver at a non-surge rate. I had one rider tell me he was put in a 30 minute time out after canceling two surge rides.


I'm hope that becomes more common. I hate that and have definitely canceled riders I've gotten a 2nd, lowered surge request from


----------



## Txchick

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber's driver agreement states that drivers have the right to accept or decline transportation services to riders. But their practice has been to deactivate (fire) drivers who did not accept a certain mysterious number of ride requests. With respect to acceptance of ride requests, Uber will no longer violate their own agreement with drivers.


Yea yea yea & those non monetary agreements in that settlement are only for 2 years. Bottom line...you don't win...you have no leverage. The point is not to become employees, but to become true independent & have a say in rates & other issues.


----------



## Djc

I'd say if this settlement gets approved as is we sue Shannon Liss-Riordan in a class action for damages and breach of fiduciary duty, or duty of care on behalf of the class or whatever her responsibility is in ensuring the class's best interests are put 1st. The reasons of risk for not taking the case to trial are unacceptable verses the consessions from Uber in the settlement. 

I believe most drivers want to remain independent contractors but be treated like one so that means in addition to being able to accept or decline any trip requests we need to:
1. See the destination as well as the pick up upon request or have 30 seconds to cancel without penalty. 
2. Have a meaningful say in rate setting especially rate cuts or be able to use the app to set minimum fare rates.
3. Uber needs to provide a tip option in the app otherwise this settlement has done nothing to help with tips that should have been/will be earned and thus 84 million in damages is way below actual damages in just tips.
4. Uber needs to be forced to educate new drivers upon sign up about actual costs including vehicle depreciation and times involved in making the fares they advertise drivers can make, and what those fares equate to after expenses ie the actual income drivers will make. Driver's take home in any hour after depreciation and expenses should be at least minimum wage or rates need to be increased to ensure that is the case.

Without those four provisions as well as the new deactivation policy any settlement is unacceptable and the case should be brought to trial. If drivers win Uber will be spending way more than taking a settlement with terms like above that actually will change things so drivers are bona fide independent contractors. 

I will look into appealing the above to Judge Chen and also options to counter sue Shannon Liss-Riordan if the current settlement she agreed to is approved.


----------



## Txchick

Djc said:


> I'd say if this settlement gets approved as is we sue Shannon Liss-Riordan in a class action for damages and breach of fiduciary duty, or duty of care on behalf of the class or whatever her responsibility is in ensuring the class's best interests are put 1st. The reasons of risk for not taking the case to trial are unacceptable verses the consessions from Uber in the settlement.
> 
> I believe most drivers want to remain independent contractors but be treated like one so that means in addition to being able to accept or decline any trip requests we need to:
> 1. See the destination as well as the pick up upon request or have 30 seconds to cancel without penalty.
> 2. Have a meaningful say in rate setting especially rate cuts or be able to use the app to set minimum fare rates.
> 3. Uber needs to provide a tip option in the app otherwise this settlement has done nothing to help with tips that should have been/will be earned and thus 84 million in damages is way below actual damages in just tips.
> 4. Uber needs to be forced to educate new drivers upon sign up about actual costs including vehicle depreciation and times involved in making the fares they advertise drivers can make, and what those fares equate to after expenses ie the actual income drivers will make. Driver's take home in any hour after depreciation and expenses should be at least minimum wage or rates need to be increased to ensure that is the case.
> 
> Without those four provisions as well as the new deactivation policy any settlement is unacceptable and the case should be brought to trial. If drivers win Uber will be spending way more than taking a settlement with terms like above that actually will change things so drivers are bona fide independent contractors.
> 
> I will look into appealing the above to Judge Chen and also options to counter sue Shannon Liss-Riordan if the current settlement she agreed to is approved.


Right on! Let me know if I can be of any help.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Coachman said:


> In particular they're targeting riders who request during surge then cancel at the last minute and re-request hoping to catch the driver at a non-surge rate. I had one rider tell me he was put in a 30 minute time out after canceling two surge rides.


wow... so now they're opening the company up to lawsuits from riders, too. Cool!
(As a rider, I'm not aware of anything that says I can't decide to cancel an order for a car) 
In my market, I pay a $5 cancellation fee if I cancel after 5 minutes of ordering.

I mean - I'm glad Uber is doing it it - but denying access to the service to riders who do that is just sooo Uber of them: now they want to control pax's too hehe.

If they want to help drivers, then they should do what they did originally and charge the cancellation fee TIMES the surge multiplier! cancel a 3.5 surge ride request after one minute: BOOM - $17.50!

I notice you're in DFW... is there ANY cancellation fee in your market?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Txchick said:


> The point is not to become employees, but to become true independent & have a say in rates & other issues.


Yes - I agree with that completely. And allowing me to ignore requests I don't want IS a step in that direction. I don't care about what happens after two years from now. I care about what happens right now - for the next two years.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Djc said:


> I'd say if this settlement gets approved as is we sue Shannon Liss-Riordan in a class action for damages and breach of fiduciary duty, or duty of care on behalf of the class or whatever her responsibility is in ensuring the class's best interests are put 1st. The reasons of risk for not taking the case to trial are unacceptable verses the consessions from Uber in the settlement.
> 
> I believe most drivers want to remain independent contractors but be treated like one so that means in addition to being able to accept or decline any trip requests we need to:
> 1. See the destination as well as the pick up upon request or have 30 seconds to cancel without penalty.
> 2. Have a meaningful say in rate setting especially rate cuts or be able to use the app to set minimum fare rates.
> 3. Uber needs to provide a tip option in the app otherwise this settlement has done nothing to help with tips that should have been/will be earned and thus 84 million in damages is way below actual damages in just tips.
> 4. Uber needs to be forced to educate new drivers upon sign up about actual costs including vehicle depreciation and times involved in making the fares they advertise drivers can make, and what those fares equate to after expenses ie the actual income drivers will make. Driver's take home in any hour after depreciation and expenses should be at least minimum wage or rates need to be increased to ensure that is the case.
> 
> Without those four provisions as well as the new deactivation policy any settlement is unacceptable and the case should be brought to trial. If drivers win Uber will be spending way more than taking a settlement with terms like above that actually will change things so drivers are bona fide independent contractors.
> 
> I will look into appealing the above to Judge Chen and also options to counter sue Shannon Liss-Riordan if the current settlement she agreed to is approved.


You don't want to be an employee - but you want to control how Uber chooses to manage their business.
Brilliant.
I suggest you invest in the company - or buy stock with voting rights if/when it becomes available.
IMO, your view of what SLR has accomplished is uneducated, uninformed and selfish.


----------



## wk1102

riChElwAy said:


> The biggest joke here is the drivers being able to meet with and "voice" their issues at Uber. OMFG what nonsense. Uber will be in full control of this "forum" which will always end with Uber saying "Well, we appreciate your input, thank you and have a nice day."


I got a text from Uber..

Matt here with with the Uber Florida team. I would love to get comments/suggestions on how to improve Uber on the Atlantic Coast: http://t.uber.com/fl_feedback

I guess thats my meeting


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup... and WE can do anything we want to... like drive when we want,


Not doing something is not the same thing as doin something.

Take your time thinking about that for a bit. Let it sink in.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> maintain our cars when we want, choose who we will provide transportation to, etc.


Yeah, I can watch tv when I want. I can choose to play golf when I want already. Not sure what the point is there or what the argument is by pointing out I can do some things in my life on my own.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> If you want to be an employee of a transportation company, please feel free to apply for a jobs with companies that hire people as employees. But it's a little pointless to sign up with a TNC as an Independent Contractor and then complain that you are not an employee.


I signed up as an independent contractor but I'm being treated like an employee. This is the argument for every driver, apparently with the exception of you. That's what this lawsuit is about.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> The fight in the courts is not to force the TNCs to make drivers employees


That's EXACTLY what this lawsuit is about. Shannon herself has stated this. Even the judge that REJECTED the Lyft lawsuit already has stated that the reason he REJECTED that lawsuit was because it didn't settle the underlying reason for the lawsuit, namely regarding us being employees or not.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> it is to force them to make drivers employees IF they continue to exert employer control over drivers OR stop exerting those employer controls.
> 
> The TNCs want to have it both ways: control drivers as if they were employees - but compensate them as Independent Contractors.
> *Class Action lawsuits are what will force the TNCs to make the hard choices they have been avoiding since their inception*.
> 
> Kudos to atty's like SLR who use the club of EMPLOYER status to force the TNCs to make changes.


So basically, you're saying you want Uber to subtly admit that they are misclassifying us but only pay out a small claim yet not even have it on record as saying we are employees? That makes no sense whatsoever to any freethinking person.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Sorry - I stopped reading after you spoke for me.
> I reject a LOT of rides in order to maximize my earnings and minimize my dead miles.
> Uber has sent me countless threats of deactivation for this practice.
> Under this agreement, they will no longer do that - and cannot deactivate me for the practice.
> That is a HUGE change for me.


Do you not realize that by logging you out of the system you are unable to make money ? They should not be able to do this. However they are. And they still are. Nothing has changed. They had that policy already in place before. Let that sink in a bit.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I personally earn between $400 and $1,000/wk driving only after-work on weekdays, and weekend evenings.
> That may be peanuts to you - but it's a significant $20,000 - $50,000/yr to me (for working during times when I would otherwise be on my couch watching TV).
> YMMV - I understand that driving may not serve you the same way it serves me - and I hope that my small voice will help improve driving for everyone.
> I respect people who express an opinion about how driving effects them personally - but have little interest in hearing from those who assume that their personal circumstances, results and opinions are the same as the other half million drivers in the US.


I consistently make atleast a $1000 gross a week right now doing UberX about 40-50 hours a week. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I speak from experience.

It appears you read my post then conveniently forgot what I was talking about when I said


> Is this what you want?


 so let me remind you...



> If we don't get employee status then Uber can continue to lower the rates and raise the bullshit booking fee as much as they want, for as long as they want. Nothing we can do can stop that. Nothing else matters. We will continue making less, and they will continue making more.


I feel it's safe to assume that's not what you want. If it is, please accept my apologies.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes - I agree with that completely. And allowing me to ignore requests I don't want IS a step in that direction. I don't care about what happens after two years from now. I care about what happens right now - for the next two years.


They aren't allowing you to ignore requests. They will time you out. However they've been doing this all the time already. Nothing has changed.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Txchick said:


> Yea yea yea & those non monetary agreements in that settlement are only for 2 years. Bottom line...you don't win...you have no leverage. The point is not to become employees, but to become true independent & have a say in rates & other issues.


As long as we are independent contractors we have no way to force them to do anything. There is no way to force them to do anything or give us any say. Period. I'm not sure how you would go about forcing them to give us say. Once this settlement takes effect, that's it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Coachman said:


> Riders who abuse the cancel feature get put in time outs. That may not be equitable justice but at least it's something.


This is great to hear. I wish there was more specific information on this. To date, Uber has taken no action whatsoever against riders that try to game the system or that try to take advantage of drivers however since this amounts to less revenue for Uber it makes some sense why they are doing it.


----------



## Djc

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You don't want to be an employee - but you want to control how Uber chooses to manage their business.
> Brilliant.
> I suggest you invest in the company - or buy stock with voting rights if/when it becomes available.
> IMO, your view of what SLR has accomplished is uneducated, uninformed and selfish.


I don't want to control how Uber runs their business but I do want them to treat drivers fairly and stop taking advantage of lesser educated people or people who don't bother to read or make calculations by spinning false information that doesn't actually benefit the driver but benefits Uber's bottom line. However it is clear by the company's track record over the last 3 years that it will not change voluntarily.

Now what exactly has SLR accomplished besides an updated deactivation policy/agreement which primarily allows drivers to ignore jobs they don't want and spells out terms for deactivation for Safety, Fraud, and Reliability issues?

Don't send me a copy of her statement saying what she thinks she has accomplished please tell me in your opinion what concrete changes besides the above has she actually accomplished with this settlement?


----------



## underpaiduber

chi1cabby said:


> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ns-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html?referer=
> 
> *APRIL 21, 2016*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - Uber has long been embroiled in a debate over the status of its drivers: Should they be independent contractors or full-time employees?
> 
> Uber says that as independent contractors, its drivers get flexibility. Their freelancer status also lets the company sidestep the costs of full-time employees, including paying minimum wage and the employers' share of Social Security. But labor groups and lawyers have argued that Uber drivers should be classified as employees to receive worker protections.
> 
> On Thursday, Uber moved a step closer to getting its way. The company reached a settlement in a pair of class-action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that will let it continue to categorize drivers in those states as independent contractors - a landmark agreement that could have lasting implications on the long-term viability of the ride-hailing service.
> 
> Under the settlement, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases. The company also agreed to several concessions to appease driver concerns, including giving more information on how and why drivers are banned from using the app, as well as aiding in creating new "drivers associations" in both states.
> 
> The settlement is a significant victory for Uber on the matter of its drivers' status. By keeping its drivers as contractors, the San Francisco-based company can keep its costs low. And while the settlement applies only to two states and is nonbinding elsewhere, the agreement and the changes that Uber is adopting may influence regulators in other places where the issue has surfaced.
> 
> "Drivers value their independence - the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," Travis Kalanick, chief executive of Uber, said in a company blog post announcing the settlement.
> 
> "That said, as Uber has grown - over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S. - we haven't always done a good job working with drivers," he wrote. "It's time to change."
> 
> The agreement, which is subject to approval by Judge Edward M. Chen, who is presiding over the cases, says Uber must pay $84 million to the plaintiffs represented in the case. Uber will dispense an additional $16 million if the company holds an initial public offering and the average valuation of Uber increases to one and a half times that of its last financing round. In December 2015, Uber was valued at $62.5 billion, making it the most valuable private technology company in the world.
> 
> The class-action suits that are being settled were originally filed in 2013 and became the biggest suits in terms of the number of drivers represented. Uber still faces litigation about driver status in other states, including similarlawsuits in Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Last June, the California Labor Commissioner's Office said Barbara Ann Berwick, a former driver for Uber, should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. That case, which does not apply to drivers other than Ms. Berwick, is being appealed by Uber.
> 
> The settlement's changes are aimed at reducing points of contention for drivers. In the past, Uber has been able to boot drivers from its platform with little explanation, something that Uber said it would no longer be able to do. The company published a lengthy document detailing all the reasons a driver may be deactivated, from unsafe driving and carrying a firearm - which is prohibited - to using drugs and alcohol.
> 
> Uber said it would also provide drivers with more information about their ratings system - a measurement based upon individual scores from passengers - and how ratings were calculated. The company is exploring creating an appeals process for Uber drivers who have been deactivated because of a low rating.
> 
> Uber also agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline to accept requests for rides from passengers, a practice that previously would contribute negatively to a driver's overall standing with the company. Instead, drivers may be temporarily logged out of the app and unable to accept new requests if they are "consistently not accepting trip requests."
> 
> "We know that sometimes things come up that prevent you from accepting every trip request, but not accepting dispatches causes delays and degrades the reliability of the system," the company said in its newly published driver deactivation policy.
> 
> Uber refers to a trip declined by a driver as a cancellation. Each city will have a maximum cancellation rate based on the average cancellation rate of the drivers in the area, the company said. It could eventually deactivate those who persistently exceed the rate.
> 
> Uber said many of the changes were a part of its overall maturation process, as it has grown from a small start-up to a global organization in roughly six years.
> 
> Yet many of the policy changes Uber announced as part of its settlement - particularly changes to its protocol on deactivating drivers over their cancellation and acceptance rates - appear designed to defuse the plaintiffs' arguments that Uber drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, as the company maintains.
> 
> Given that the proposed settlement would allow the company to continue pushing drivers to accept most rides, pick up most passengers and maintain their cars in certain ways - alevel of control that is often associated with employees rather than contractors - many critics of the company's labor model may not be appeased.
> 
> Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco and Noam Scheiber from Washington.


----------



## underpaiduber

The sad and pathetic thing about this type of lawsuit is the lawyers representing the UBER drivers knew from the beginning that there was no way Uber was going to reclassify the drivers as employees and the court would agree. The main point of the lawsuit was to make Uber drivers employees. They knew it was a way for themselves to make big money in legal fees and believe me they will. The end result is a big win for Uber. So now Uber pays out what amounts to less than a penny on the dollar or a couple hundred dollars to each driver involved.

I wonder what happens to the drivers who collected unemployment after the court rules drivers are independent contractors? The law states independent contractors can not collect unemployment. Do they have to pay that money back?


----------



## driveLA

my god so many drivers are idiots.

why do you want to be employees. so hopeless.

just fight to control the ****in rates man as independent contractors. 90% of our problems will go away with just that.


----------



## SD_Expedition

READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST!!!

This is about Uber treating drivers as employees. If you are an IC and are being treated as an EMPLOYEE then they owe you money. It's not about becoming an employee per say. But about being treated as one.

PEOPLE READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST.



driveLA said:


> my god so many drivers are idiots.
> 
> why do you want to be employees. so hopeless.
> 
> just fight to control the &%[email protected]!*in rates man as independent contractors. 90% of our problems will go away with just that.





Michael - Cleveland said:


> You don't want to be an employee - but you want to control how Uber chooses to manage their business.
> Brilliant.
> I suggest you invest in the company - or buy stock with voting rights if/when it becomes available.
> IMO, your view of what SLR has accomplished is uneducated, uninformed


----------



## driveLA

you guys are slow man


----------



## Txchick

uberdriverfornow said:


> As long as we are independent contractors we have no way to force them to do anything. There is no way to force them to do anything or give us any say. Period. I'm not sure how you would go about forcing them to give us say. Once this settlement takes effect, that's it.


Well the judge didn't accept the Lyft settlement. If this case would have gone to trial & Uber would have lost...it's either you are an employee or a true independent contractor with less interference from them. Uber could not have it both ways. They would have had to make a decision.


----------



## Txchick

driveLA said:


> my god so many drivers are idiots.
> 
> why do you want to be employees. so hopeless.
> 
> just fight to control the &%[email protected]!*in rates man as independent contractors. 90% of our problems will go away with just that.


Well that fighting for rates is working so well right now isn't it? Without Uber losing this lawsuit, what pressure can be put on them?? None.


----------



## SD_Expedition

driveLA said:


> you guys are slow man


OK bruh.



Txchick said:


> Well the judge didn't accept the Lyft settlement. If this case would have gone to trial & Uber would have lost...the it's either you are an employee or a true independent contractor with less interference from them. Uber could not have it both ways. They would have had to make a decision.


They want it both ways, it yields the best results in all aspects.


----------



## Txchick

SD_Expedition said:


> OK bruh.
> 
> They want it both ways, it yields the best results in all aspects.


This settlement gives Uber that.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

driveLA said:


> my god so many drivers are idiots.
> 
> why do you want to be employees. so hopeless.
> 
> just fight to control the &%[email protected]!*in rates man as independent contractors. 90% of our problems will go away with just that.


Ok, smart guy, why don't you explain to all of us idiots how you expect to force Uber to play nice ?

Also explain how Uber's previous track record makes it crystal clear that they will stop lowering rates, start treating us fairly, stop raising the booking fee that they get 100% of, among many many other things ?


----------



## SD_Expedition

uberdriverfornow said:


> Ok, smart guy, why don't you explain to all of us idiots how you expect to force Uber to play nice ?
> 
> Also explain how Uber's previous track record makes it crystal clear that they will stop lowering rates, start treating us fairly, stop raising the booking fee that they get 100% of, among many many other things ?


Don't even try. You will wear yourself out trying to explain simple concepts.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Txchick said:


> This settlement gives Uber that.


More so, Uber is complacent where it is. They have complete control over the driver (whether drivers believe that or not). It's a win win for them before, and now with the settlement agreement, it's probably saved Uber ninety-nine gazillion dollars. They are smart, got to give them that. Hopefully Judge Chen sees through it and gets the drivers backs in this, much like Lyft.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

[QUOTE="underpaiduber, post: 1021465, member: 47934"

I wonder what happens to the drivers who collected unemployment after the court rules drivers are independent contractors? The law states independent contractors can not collect unemployment. Do they have to pay that money back?[/QUOTE]
No driver ever collected unemployment against Uber. Uber employees such as a CSR are the only ones to collect Unemployment Compensation against Uber. If a driver collected unemployment it was against a previous employer that had paid both State and Federal Unemployment Tax for that particular employee. Depending on which state you reside in, they take the last quarter of the previous year and the first quarter of the current year to figure your award. An entity must pay unemployment on your behalf for you to collect against them. The only way you pay back unemployment is if you were found to be fraudulent in your filings.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Djc said:


> Now what exactly has SLR accomplished besides an updated deactivation policy/agreement which primarily allows drivers to ignore jobs they don't want and spells out terms for deactivation for Safety, Fraud, and Reliability issues?


For me - the change which allows me to execute the right Uber gave me in my driver agreement to choose which rides I will accept without being deactivated is a HUGE deal. It means I can continue driving when, where and who I want, without being deactivated.

Beyond that, Uber is creating a system of due-process allowing a deactivated driver to plead their case before a panel of drivers - who understand the realities of driving, and who will have the power to reinstate a driver (presumably for 'non-criminal' offenses).

Those are the two 'biggies' for me - as they allow me to better operate as an IC without being threatened with deactivation or actually deactivated without any means to appeal.

Just because I don't like how Uber runs their business, doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to run it that way. Uber was not created to serve drivers - and it never will be. It is set-up and operated to serve riders.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Michael - Cleveland said:


> For me - the change which allows me to execute the right Uber gave me in my driver agreement to choose which rides I will accept without being deactivated is a HUGE deal. It means I can continue driving when, where and who I want, without being deactivated.
> 
> Beyond that, Uber is creating a system of due-process allowing a deactivated driver to plead their case before a panel of drivers - who understand the realities of driving, and who will have the power to reinstate a driver (presumably for 'non-criminal' offenses).
> 
> Those are the two 'biggies' for me - as they allow me to better operate as an IC without being threatened with deactivation or actually deactivated without any means to appeal.
> 
> Just because I don't like how Uber runs their business, doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to run it that way. Uber was not created to serve drivers - and it never will be. It is set-up and operated to serve riders.


Without drivers how will riders get around. Chicken and the egg.


----------



## Djc

Michael - Cleveland said:


> For me - the change which allows me to execute the right Uber gave me in my driver agreement to choose which rides I will accept without being deactivated is a HUGE deal. It means I can continue driving when, where and who I want, without being deactivated.
> 
> Beyond that, Uber is creating a system of due-process allowing a deactivated driver to plead their case before a panel of drivers - who understand the realities of driving, and who will have the power to reinstate a driver (presumably for 'non-criminal' offenses).
> 
> Those are the two 'biggies' for me - as they allow me to better operate as an IC without being threatened with deactivation or actually deactivated without any means to appeal.
> 
> Just because I don't like how Uber runs their business, doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to run it that way. Uber was not created to serve drivers - and it never will be. It is set-up and operated to serve riders.


You said "IMO, your view of what SLR has accomplished is uneducated, uninformed and selfish." I know what she has accomplished but it is not enough. The deactivation policy is important but being independent contractors drivers need to be able to see the destination to guage the value of the "contact" or trip. In addition, the suit is about tips being included or not needed. Either the monetary penalty needs to be increased to compensate for lost tips past and future or the settlement should mandate that Uber includes a tip option in the app and clearly notifies its riders that tips are not included and drivers should be tipped at the riders discretion as is common place in all other service industries.

My other two points about Uber's rate setting and preventing them from taking avantage of drivers via spinning rhetoric that is not clear or just plain false; can be handled in another case as they should not be able to pay drivers less than minimum wage after expenses regardless of W-2 or 1099. However, my other two points are very important in a settlement for this case. The reason why Uber gets away with what it does is because too many people are afraid of fighting. The attorneys are afraid of not getting a big pay day, many drivers just care about cash in hand in the short term, or don't know enough or don't think they can change things - all the protests in NYC and other cities had minimum turn out. The superbowl strike was a disaster etc.


----------



## Djc

Also for me personally it doesn't matter if rates get cut or drivers get screwed because rideshare is a temporary 2nd gig for me but I do care about people in general (obviously I'd like rates to be higher or at least stay the same so if I want to continue next year or 3 years from now I can). Minimum wage in Massachusetts will be $12 next year after 3 years of increases that were long overdue. The income inequality in this country is sad, we are becoming like old world Europe which are not the principles this country was founded on. Companies need to start paying people at the bottom a living wage and a share of the company's success not only exisit to make the people at the top or near the top, or the shareholders and investors exponentially more wealthy than the rest. There is plenty of money to go around. Someone was telling me the other day a mechanic or carpenter in the 50s-80s used to make as much as a small business owner or mid level white collar professional.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

The bottom line is this lawsuit was going to be a slam dunk for Shannon.

Not only did she try to pull a fast one on the Lyft drivers that was rejected by the judge, she's trying to pull another fast one on Uber drivers. The only hiccup she has had in the entire history of the trial was the 9th district of appeals decided to look at the class action status. They were going to review whether or not the newer drivers under the newer arbitration clause would be part of the main class. That's the only holdup. Even at that, it's almost a slam dunk that they would be included. Even if not, we would still be ruled employees when it went to trial. I have never even heard of a case where she lost an employee classification case. She supposedly was the best in the business.

I stand behind my firm opinion that she got bought off. We're talking about a billion dollars Uber is on the hook for, and much more going forward when we are reclassified as employees. She has tried settling for this ridiculous $100 million, valuing each driver claim at about $150. Absurd.

Let's put this in perspective. In the Lyft trial, she tried letting Lyft off the hook for a measley $10 milllion. The judge asked for all the documentation regarding a potential win for us and rejected the lawsuit for two reasons. The first was that he valued our Lyft claim at $100 million. The second was that he said the settlement doesn't resolve the underlying reason for the original lawsuits, namely whether we are employees.

Fast forward to three days ago, she's now trying to push this ridiculously low $100 million settlement when our claims are supposedly valued at $1 billion dollars while simultaneously not resolving the same reason for the original lawsuits, namely our employees status.

He did it once, I'm confident he will do it again. This guy seems to be a good judge, imvho.


----------



## William1964

Bart McCoy said:


> Nothing? NOTHING at all? I'm reading more than nothing
> 
> So you wanted to become an employee of Uber? exactly what type of outcome did you want from this lawsuit?
> 
> So you say shannon is a sellout for money, but then you turn around and say you want billions of money for the drivers?? Seems yall both want money
> 
> THIS
> Why should it stop in 2 states? clearly every state had this same employee/contractor issue
> Give me my money!


From what I remember reading earlier they wanted expenses gas money insurance Dental 401k all retroactive to the date they started working as a partner with the defendant.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Oh, and that $100 million is really only going to be $84 million. There is no way in hell Uber, which is really one of the most unprofitable companies I have ever heard of, which never allows anyone to see their books, even the investors donating billions of dollars every 6 months or so to keep them solvent, is going to be filing an IPO any time soon, if ever. They would have to open up the books. Travis has made it clear that won't happen.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SD_Expedition said:


> Without drivers how will riders get around. Chicken and the egg.


a) Uber and Lyft do not seem to have any problem getting drivers. If they did, you'd see fares increasing, not decreasing.
b) Have you read/heard/seen ANY news in the last 2 years about Uber and autonomous vehicles?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> Oh, and that $100 million is really only going to be $84 million. There is no way in hell Uber, which is really one of the most unprofitable companies I have ever heard of, which never allows anyone to see their books, even the investors donating billions of dollars every 6 months or so to keep them solvent, is going to be filing an IPO any time soon, if ever. They would have to open up the books. Travis has made it clear that won't happen.


How people can just make things up and post them here as as if they were true and factual is absolutely beyond me.
If you think for one second that a public corporation will invest a half billion dollars into a start-up without reviewing detailed financials then you know absolutely ZERO about investment.



> ...is really one of the most unprofitable companies I have ever heard of


Really?
Ever heard of AMAZON?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Djc said:


> Y I know what she has accomplished but it is not enough.


I don't disagree. But I also don't think the weight of changing a privately held $62bil company falls to the shoulders of a single law firm or atty in a single federal civil suit. You want to be furious with 'someone' for allowing Uber and Lyft to build their valuations and brands at the expense of drivers? Turn to your state and federal legislators which have not updated labor laws and regulations - AND which did nothing to stop these companies form operating illegally.



Djc said:


> Also for me personally it doesn't matter if rates get cut or drivers get screwed because rideshare is a temporary 2nd gig for me but I do care about people in general (obviously I'd like rates to be higher or at least stay the same so if I want to continue next year or 3 years from now I can).


 Me too... but I'd also like to win a big lottery. My 'desires' have nothing much to do with how a private company chooses to operate. The choices I have are to drive or not drive - buy a lottery ticket, or not.


> Minimum wage in Massachusetts will be $12 next year after 3 years of increases that were long overdue.


I agree. So what? Uber drivers do not earn WAGES. We CHOOSE to make an investment and have the tools and information to know exactly what the results of that investment will be. Anyone (including me) who knows they are losing money driving but continues to drive is choosing to continue make a loss generating investment.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> People with different opinions than you are not morons or shills.
> Not sure if the above article has this quote, but check the USA Today article.
> http://usat.ly/1SzN3bg
> So there you have it. The union that you want to head the drivers association has already looked into it and found it the majority of drivers don't want to be employees.


Would it be unreasonable - or possibly unworkable - for the TNCs to create two different 'classes' of drivers?
One class, Independent Contractors - earning as we do now, and continuing to work without FLSA protections...
and a second 'class' of drivers who are employees, earning an hourly wage, competitive and legal in each market and state?


----------



## Bart McCoy

William1964 said:


> From what I remember reading earlier they wanted expenses gas money insurance Dental 401k all retroactive to the date they started working as a partner with the defendant.


Dental? 401K as an independent contractor? is this a serious reply?

but they are getting back expense pay
the judge will probably throw out the 100mil and make it half a billion at least, just watch


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> Dental? 401K as an independent contractor? is this a serious reply?
> 
> but they are getting back expense pay
> the judge will probably throw out the 100mil and make it half a billion at least, just watch


The judge can refuse approval of the agreement - but cannot force any change to it.
And the agreement in its entirety is null and void if Judge Chen refuses to reverse himself on the issue of the Uber Binding Arbitration clause and vacate his previous ruling on the issue. If he refuses to vacate that order, Uber has stated it will, if necessary, appeal on that issue alone all the way to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If he refuses to vacate that order, Uber has stated it will, if necessary, appeal on that issue alone *all the way to the Supreme Court.*


so you saying William1964 doesn't get his root canal and porsche 911 turbo until 2027?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> so you saying William1964 doesn't get his root canal and porsche 911 turbo until 2027?


I said no such thing.
I hear that root canals are dirt cheap in Tijuana.
911 Turbos, too.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I said no such thing.
> I hear that root canals are dirt cheap in Tijuana.
> 911 Turbos, too.


yeah just saying it could be tied up in the courts for years and years then if Uber wants to press the issue enough


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> yeah just saying it could be tied up in the courts for years and years then if Uber wants to press the issue enough


remember - just because a company appeals a judgement, doesn't mean the court has to place a stay on the lower court's order. If that order contains rulings (like the invalidity of the arbitration clause), it stays in effect until one court or another puts it on hold pending the appeal. In fact, in order to file an appeal, the company has to place a significantly large bond payment with the court.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How people can just make things up and post them here as as if they were true and factual is absolutely beyond me.
> If you think for one second that a public corporation will invest a half billion dollars into a start-up without reviewing detailed financials then you know absolutely ZERO about investment.
> 
> Really?
> Ever heard of AMAZON?


Are you being serious with that junk ?

First of all, NOBODY that has invested money in Uber has EVER seen the books of Uber at any time. Period. Even the newest round of funding has specifically stated that they are investing "blind". That means they don't get to see the books. Why don't you do some research before talking. It will help you to understand more. There's a link waiting for you in this sub-forum.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Furthermore, Uber lost $1.9 BILLION dollars last year. Do you even understand how much money that is ?.

Uber has YET to turn a profit in their ENTIRE history. They've been in the red the ENTIRE time.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you being serious with that junk ?
> First of all, NOBODY that has invested money in Uber has EVER seen the books of Uber at any time. Period.


Riiiight.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Furthermore, Uber lost $1.9 BILLION dollars last year. Do you even understand how much money that is ?.
> Uber has YET to turn a profit in their ENTIRE history. They've been in the red the ENTIRE time.


Uber lost $1bil in CHINA. And $.9bil in India, France and other countries.
It reached profitability in the US (and that's with all of the arguably one-time and short-term expenses of legal and lobbying costs).
How long did it take AMAZON
(another company which, at the time, made all of it's money selling other peoples products)
to reach profitability in the US?
TEN YEARS. 
And you think that a tech start-up with the fastest rising valuation of any tech company in history is 'the worst' you've ever seen? This is why some people get very, very wealthy investing - while others (like me) scratch our heads in wonder. Risk aversion, I suppose.

Yeah - I do know how much $1.9bil is -
but apparently you don't:
it's ~ 3% of Uber's global valuation.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ginseng41 said:


> Oh I know that, but what is uber admitting to having done wrong





Txchick said:


> Nothing that's the problem!!


It is standard language in these kinds of settlement agreements that the defendant admits to no wrongdoing,



ginseng41 said:


> Then why are they agreeing to shell out so much money? It has to be for damages or misdeeds or something.


In addition to the Standard Language where the defendant admits to no wrongdoing, there is standard language where both parties state that they are making this settlement to avoid the expense, time and uncertain outcome of a trial. Further, one of the elements of a legal contract is that there is a mutual giving and taking. In many cases, one party agrees to perform certain acts in exchange for a "consideration" (money). When the check is rendered, there is an accompanying Release that the plaintiffs must sign. Part of the language in the release is "In consideration of the
sum of $___________________, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged......................."

Everyone does know what the real deal is, but this is part of the legal charade. If anyone on these boards ever has been the aggrieved party in an automobile collision and actually did read the papers that he signed, he would understand what I am describing. As a former official of both a cab company and a cab insurance company, I prepared, or caused my attorneys to prepare, similar documents.



Uber-Doober said:


> This way, she and her firm still get their 1/3


You are being overly kind. The one-third is pure profit for the lawyer/law firm. All expenses come out of the clients' share. This means that all filing fess, secretarial expenses, costs for office supplies, cab fares (or Uber fares---and they take Uber Black; not Uber Pool, not UberX, not even Uber Taxi [where available], but Uber BLACK.) come out of the remaining two thirds. Anyone who thinks that the lawyers do not pad those expenses is deluded. This is why in automobile collision cases, the aggrieved party usually ends up with about twenty-five per cent (in that case, though, there is a treatment mill to be paid, but there is minimal office expenses--and those are padded). This is why in cases like these (where the "office expenses" are higher but there is no treatment mill to be paid. There are, however, expert witnesses to be paid or deposed, or both), the lawyer winds up with most of it, the lead plaintiffs receive some money and the class members receive a buy-one-get-one-free voucher for a Five Guys hamburger.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Shannon has a fiduciary duty.


To herself and her firm, at least that is how lawyers think.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> a) Uber and Lyft do not seem to have any problem getting drivers.


They do not. They do, however, seem to have problems keeping them.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Riiiight.
> 
> Uber lost $1bil in CHINA. And $.9bil in India, France and other countries.
> It reached profitability in the US (and that's with all of the arguably one-time and short-term expenses of legal and lobbying costs).
> How long did it take AMAZON
> (another company which, at the time, made all of it's money selling other peoples products)
> to reach profitability in the US?
> TEN YEARS.
> And you think that a tech start-up with the fastest rising valuation of any tech company in history is 'the worst' you've ever seen? This is why some people get very, very wealthy investing - while others (like me) scratch our heads in wonder. Risk aversion, I suppose.
> 
> Yeah - I do know how much $1.9bil is -
> but apparently you don't:
> it's ~ 3% of Uber's global valuation.


If Uber is a "technology" company, then I'm a rocket scientist.

You really shouldn't believe everything Uber tells you, but going by all your posts, you would have a hard time preventing yourself from not believing everything Uber tells you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> They do not. They do, however, seem to have problems keeping them.


Nope. Keeping them is (imo) not in their best interest (as long as they have a steady flow of new drivers - which they do. Uber has said the average driver only works for 6 months. Their business plan is set-up accordingly (otherwise we'd see higher fares to encourage drivers to stay longer).

The problem with long-term drivers is that we become very dissatisfied, disgruntled and eventually troublemakers - either bashing the company to pax or becoming increasingly difficult for Uber to deal with - or both. So why even try to keep them around? They also cost Uber more $ (due to the grandfathered lower Uber fee they pay).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> If Uber is a "technology" company, then I'm a rocket scientist.
> 
> You really shouldn't believe everything Uber tells you, but going by all your posts, you would have a hard time preventing yourself from not believing everything Uber tells you.


 you have no idea what you are talking about - keep talking and keep proving it


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> you have no idea what you are talking about - keep talking and keep proving it


I've won each and every argument against you thus far. You keep acting like you speak for drivers but I've seen through your charade.

The substance of your posts gives it away.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Keeping them is (imo) not in their best interest (as long as they have a steady flow of new drivers - which they do.
> 
> The problem with long-term drivers is that we become very dissatisfied, disgruntled and eventually troublemakers - either bashing the company to pax or becoming increasingly difficult for Uber to deal with - or both. So why even try to keep them around?
> 
> They also cost Uber more $ (due to the grandfathered lower Uber fee they pay).


While they do have a flow of new drivers, I would be hard put to call it "steady". I make this statement because as time passes, it appears that Uber (and Lyft) is casting a wider and wider net. I see this in the form of better sign-on bonuses, lowered automobile and driver standards, re-instatement of de-activated drivers in select markets, the one-time for a few hours experiment here of having Uber Taxi drivers cover UberX requests (with concommitant nice guarantees). The flow is certainly there, and, over time, it shakes out to keep pace with, or, even slightly exceed the turnover rate, for now, at least. But, Uber (and Lyft) has had to look harder for new drivers.

To be sure, the veterans will become jaded, but it is not in Uber's best interest to let go all of their veterans. Some of us are smart enough not to badmouth the company to passengers, as we are aware that it could get back to Uber and we really do not want the consequences of that. The chronic crybabies, yes, let them go. Push them if you must ("We have decided to end our partnership with you. This is not a decision that we make lightly....................BETA SIGMA!). Keeping around enough veterans (and do keep in mind that "veteran" is a relative term in the TNC world) does help to keep up the brand in that they have managed to learn a little bit in their short time driving. It is mostly the rookies who are the source of the complaints that I hear--not unexpected. Still, as "veteran" is a relative term, even they do not know what I know (the _*Boston Globe*_'s insisting that my knowledge is no longer relevant be damned), which is why even the relative veteran can be a source of complaints. Still, the user is better off riding with someone who has some experience at this. As you are no doubt aware, there are few jobs where there is a substitute for experience.

So yes, let the louder malcontents go, but keep around those who will stay, even some of the grumblers--the more quiet ones. You encourage those who will stay with guarantees and bonuses, which have gotten better, in this market, at least. You will recall that while she did not come out and state it, the Operations Manager who posted here briefly did imply rather strongly that Uber did want some "churn", as she put it, but did not want too much of it.

The "veterans" certainly do detract from the profits. I suspect that this might be part of the motivation for Uber to do some of the "stupid de-activations" that were the subject of a few posts on these boards only to offer the "stupidly de-activated" drivers re-instatement shortly thereafter.


----------



## gman

Michael - Cleveland said:


> For me - the change which allows me to execute the right Uber gave me in my driver agreement to choose which rides I will accept without being deactivated is a HUGE deal. It means I can continue driving when, where and who I want, without being deactivated.


This is the biggest deal for me as well. I am about to retire from my regular job, in part based on an expectation of being able to earn at least a certain amount on Uber and a few other "sharing economy" platforms. To not have to worry about a permanent deactivation coming out of the blue will be a great feeling.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> I've won each and every argument against you thus far. You keep acting like you speak for drivers but I've seen through your charade.
> 
> The substance of your posts gives it away.


Lol! Won? In your mind, sure. The very fact that you look at discussions and opposing points of view as something to win or lose is evidence about your perspective and attitude. You've done nothing except to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

gman said:


> This is the biggest deal for me as well. I am about to retire from my regular job, in part based on an expectation of being able to earn at least a certain amount on Uber and a few other "sharing economy" platforms. To not have to worry about a permanent deactivation coming out of the blue will be a great feeling.


Well to be fair, it could still come out of the blue. All it takes is one idiot rider filing a false complaint to get you deactivated. The good news is that Uber is now committed to appeals and some form of due process.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Still, the user is better off riding with someone who has some experience at this. ..
> keep around those who will stay, even some of the grumblers--the more quiet ones.


Agreed... and I think this is why Uber decided to grandfather in older drivers with the old (lower) Uber fee percentage.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ubersuperbowlstrike said:


> If Uber was a technology company it would be a one time connection fee & they would have nothing else to do with the fare, miles , & transportation aspect. $5 to connect driver gets 100% that's an independent contractor, but they are not they are a new take on the Ponzi scheme using desperate humans as loss leaders to subsidize unprofitable cab rides to gain anti competitive market share to get their competition to go out of business.
> 
> It's the new economy billionaires burning thru millions a week giving "free" stuff to people so the to small to succeed are forced out of business because gasp they have to actually sell their products & services for more than they cost to make this thing called profit.


Two minor corrections to a post that I otherwise agree with completely.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. Uber is not paying off later investors with the money provided from earlier investors.

And the small guy/gal can't sell off the tools of his/her trade (vehicle) to recoup his/her loss because after working for several months or a year or two, the tools of his/her trade have become nearly worthless.


----------



## Kruhn

riChElwAy said:


> The biggest joke here is the drivers being able to meet with and "voice" their issues at Uber. OMFG what nonsense. Uber will be in full control of this "forum" which will always end with Uber saying "Well, we appreciate your input, thank you and have a nice day."


"Oh, and by the way, that forum will have offices in Nome, Alaska, Pago Pago, American Samoa, and Agana, Guam, you must appear in person to air your grievance, and Uber is not responsible for travel expenses to the forum."


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Kruhn said:


> "Oh, and by the way, that forum will have offices in Nome, Alaska, Pago Pago, American Samoa, and Agana, Guam, you must appear in person to air your grievance, and Uber is not responsible for travel expenses to the forum."


yeah, 'cept I believe the wording of the announcement from Uber was more like '_every major city in the US_' 
(there's more than enough to fodder to fuel the fires of rage against Uber... why make stuff up? Yeah - I know... because it's fun!)


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Kruhn said:


> forum will have offices in Nome, Alaska, Pago Pago, American Samoa, and Agana, Guam


Allright, good, I can have an excuse to take a vacation in the South Pacific (***Cues up _*Bali Hai*_***)

I wonder if I could get them to have it at Point Barrow instead of Nome. I would like an excuse to see the Midnight Sun and Darkness at Noon, again.


----------



## Kruhn

SD_Expedition said:


> The settlement may make it easier for drivers to earn tips, which was a main issue in the original lawsuit. Drivers claimed Uber told passengers that tips were included in the fare, but the company did not actually give tips to the drivers. As part of the agreement, Uber will let drivers post signs in their cars stating, "Tips are not included, they are not required, but they would be appreciated."


Dear Travis, May I post this sign, please?









So why not, you bastards, add the tipping function on the app with a clear message that tipping is not included, but highly encouraged, you cheap bloody jackass!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ubersuperbowlstrike said:


> Using humans it is a new Ponzi scheme those make big money ads on clist to get new drivers to replace the old ones cuz it's designed to boot smart drivers all while duping investors like their not criminals


hehe - you dishonor Ponzi.

It is a new scheme - granted. It is a scheme to shift ALL of the expenses of providing a service to the labor force while management charges both the labor force and the consumer - and completely controls the pricing while growing it's brand, influence and user base.

It should be illegal.
But it's not.

Yet.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/uber-settlement-could-net-most-drivers-dollar24-or-less/ar-BBsfApT?li=BBnbfcL

This one tells about potential payout to drivers. According to this, the class members will get a little more than a voucher for buy a large one topping pizza at Little Caesar's and get a medium plain free. They actually might receive enough to buy two large one topping pizzas at Little Caesar's.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/uber-settlement-could-net-most-drivers-dollar24-or-less/ar-BBsfApT?li=BBnbfcL
> 
> This one tells about potential payout to drivers. According to this, the class members will get a little more than a voucher for buy a large one topping pizza at Little Caesar's and get a medium plain free. They actually might receive enough to buy two large one topping pizzas at Little Caesar's.


Do you think that a driver who drove just a few hours a week - did not opt-out of the binding arbitration clause of the Uber agreement (as so many of us here have been pleading with people to do) - and were not a direct party to the law suit should get some kind of lottery windfall?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

^^^^^^^^^........no opinion one way or the other, only because I had not thought about that one way or the other...........simply posting a related story............thought it might go better here than starting another topic......................

The comments are what I have been stating about class action suits in general. The class members usually receive these vouchers that are so difficult to redeem that in reality, they do not receive anything.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> The comments are what I have been stating about class action suits in general. The class members usually receive these vouchers that are so difficult to redeem that in reality, they do not receive anything.


Seems to me that that if the court approves the settlement agreement:
a) Those who filed the suit *and* had opted-out of the binding arbitration clause will receive financial compensation
b) Those certified as part of the class who gave up their right to sue (did not opt-out) will receive minor financial compensation
c) Those not certified in the class will receive token compensation
d) All US drivers will benefit from the changes Uber has been forced to make even though they did not participate in the law suit and/or did not qualify as part of the 'class'​


----------



## Lack9133

Every time Uber has to concede even the smallest amount of power to drivers, it is a win for the drivers. Unfortunately, a win for the drivers is a loss for the public. I can already see a small fraction of drivers going overboard with their tipping signage. One of the things passengers love about Uber is the fact that you feel like you're in a personal vehicle and if drivers have the ability to start placing signage in the back seat, that feeling of a personal vehicle will go away.


----------



## Djc

Lack9133 said:


> Every time Uber has to concede even the smallest amount of power to drivers, it is a win for the drivers. Unfortunately, a win for the drivers is a loss for the public. I can already see a small fraction of drivers going overboard with their tipping signage. One of the things passengers love about Uber is the fact that you feel like you're in a personal vehicle and if drivers have the ability to start placing signage in the back seat, that feeling of a personal vehicle will go away.


As a rider who used Uber alot before being a driver:
1. I thought tips were included but for the taxi option I added an auto 20% in the app. (Why this option doesnt exist for UberX etc is just silly).
2. I had no idea the percentage Uber took and the booking fee only went to Uber. I assumed drivers were making bank based on the fares I was paying - average $10-27 for short to medium trips around the city hence why I looked into driving. 
3. I thought uber pool the more passengers driver picked up the more he made. Also thought that it must suck to only get one pick up as so cheap on passenger side vs a regular fare. No idea about the pool rate or that drivers dont make a combination of all the fares passengers pay.
4. After finding out tips were not included its a pain in the a** to tip because hardly carry cash or dont have small change or just am in a rush and dont have time to deal with all that. Now I use Lyft as a passenger as I can just tip $2 in the app easy by clicking a button. I can also tip later after the ride if im.busy or have things in my hand.
5. I didn't realize driver's aren't paid for waiting on pick up or that the rate was so small that its not worth waiting for long.
6. I didn't realize all the goodies - water etc were not expensed by Uber and came out of driver's pockets (I see now why hardly anyone has water anymore vs a couple years ago).
7. I thought all drivers were really busy because everyone uses Uber (now Lyft too) but didn't realize how there is an over supply of drivers for most parts of the day.
8. I didn't think about driving rules for pick up locations but was fine to walk to the car or cross a street unlike some entitled riders.

This is pretty much how most riders think as they are uninformed or don't care as they have never been on the driver's side. Its like if you ever worked in a bar or restaurant you always tip well even if you don't really have the extra cash.

Customers have to be properly educated if drivers are ever to see regular tips and even then without in app tipping most millennials or people who like Uber because there is no physical transaction will not carry change just to tip. What uber needs to do is set up an auto tip percentage like they have for taxis that rider can change for that ride when give us star ratings or a simple in app tips system like Lyft.

Problem is one of the reasons why "tip is included" rhetoric came out is because Travis doesn't like to tip and created a system to get around town without the issues of calling for or hailing and TIPPING a cab or livery dtiver. I'm sure he's one of those that doesn't tip at a bar and leaves a token tip at dinner.


----------



## UberPissed

_I didn't read the 18 pages of comments, but it did seem predominately negative, and that drivers thought they were getting the short end of the stick. For what it's worth, here are my two cents:

1. The comments about Shannon are unfair, and cast by most people with little to no knowledge of how class actions work. Yes, she is getting a lot of money, but that is how class actions work. You don't expect to work for free, so why should her firm?
2. This lawsuit was never about money, although a lot of money was involved. This lawsuit was about a determination of worker classification that would have had significant long-term effects. For the first time, maybe ever, you have a statement from Travis acknowledging the shortcomings they have made with drivers. We now have some sort of framework, which hopefully is honored in terms of deactivation, issues, etc. 
3. Perhaps Uber can create a tip feature in it's app as a result of this. That would be a huge victory for all drivers. _


----------



## UberPissed

PS - lets just say that Uber loses, the lawsuit, and now you are all deemed employees of uber. Is that what you really want?

Think about that.


----------



## ginseng41

What is wanted is for retro-compensation for the past and current situation when we're treated as employees and a change to make it so that we are rue independent contractors


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> d) All US drivers will benefit from the changes Uber has been forced to make even though they did not participate in the law suit and/or did not qualify as part of the 'class'



Yes, I read pretty much the same thing, but, I have seen far too many of these things where the verdict is rendered/settlement made, there is a cloud of dust and, when the dust settles, the compensation goes out in a manner not dissimilar to my comments: almost everyone, except for the lawyer and lead plaintiffs receive token compensation. Perhaps this one will be different.

I do not live or work in California or Massachusetts, thus, the only thing that affects me, really, is what you have labelled as "d". Indeed, that is a benefit. I have been aware, always, of the drawbacks of computer/satellite/GPS based digital call assignment (as have I been aware of those of voice dispatch). The results of this settlement are such that I can work around the drawbacks of the "digital" call assignment without worry of unwarranted retribution from any TNC.

There is an action pending in Maryland. I expect that this settlement will be a model/prod for all parties to settle that one, although I am not aware of the details of the Maryland action. As I have not carried too many trips either to or from Maryland, I do not expect too much, if anything, from that action. Further, as I drive TNC only a little more than enough to stay in the game, I am not expecting too much from it. Mind you, none of the above is a complaint, marry, it is an observation.
​


Lack9133 said:


> One of the things passengers love about Uber is the fact that you feel like you're in a personal vehicle and if drivers have the ability to start placing signage in the back seat, that feeling of a personal vehicle will go away.


Ya' know, never have I heard that from any of my taxi or TNC passengers, but, I could be convinced that it is not an invalid point. As I would not dismiss your statement out of hand, I could understand where the passenger might get that, as well. DIPSO FACTO: Drivers start putting placards, adverts and who knows what else and the customer thinks that he is on a METRObus or in the office of a used car salesman.



UberPissed said:


> _I didn't read the 18 pages of comments, but it did seem predominately negative, and that drivers thought they were getting the short end of the stick. For what it's worth, here are my two cents:
> 
> 1. The comments about Shannon are cast by most people with little to no knowledge of how class actions work.
> 
> Yes, she is getting a lot of money, but that is how class actions work.
> 
> You don't expect to work for free, so why should her firm?
> 
> 2. This lawsuit was never about money, although a lot of money was involved.
> 
> For the first time, maybe ever, you have a statement from Travis acknowledging the shortcomings they have made with drivers.
> 
> We now have some sort of framework, which hopefully is honored in terms of deactivation, issues, etc.
> 
> 3. Perhaps Uber can create a tip feature in it's app as a result of this. That would be a huge victory for all drivers. _


1. I have been involved in more than one class action, so I do understand how they work. This is why I have made the comments that I have.

Yup, it is how almost any suit works: the real winners are the lawyers. Any time that you involve lawyers, all that you do is sign checks.

No rational person expects any lawyer to work for free. The problem is that most of these people fail to read what they sign, then listen to the lawyer who far too often renders a somewhat less than full explanation of how any award/settlement will be divided. Further, the lawyers tend to use language that while it does not specifically promise big money, suggests that it will be forthcoming. In short, the clients never expect that the lawyer is working for that which he finally receives. The major thing that clients fail to understand is that the one-third that a lawyer working on a contingency takes is pure profit. Any expenses and fees (including the lawyer's expenses) come out of what it left. This holds true especially in cases involving automobile collisions and TV lawyers. If there is a fifteen thousand dollar settlement, the client expects that he will receive five thousand dollars and, is unpleasantly surprised when the lawyer hands him a cheque for fifteen hundred.

2. This is America. It is always about the Benjamins and it is all about the Benjamins; it has been, is and always will be. In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash (or American Express, where accepted---Uber and most lawyers accept American Express)

T. Kalanick's statement is, indeed a first, but a minor benefit.

The "framework", as you designate it, is, in fact a benefit for TNC drivers nationwide. I do expect that Lyft, Split (as of this posting, available only in my market) and whatever other TNC is out there will allow its terms to guide their policy. Still, the best thing that I get out of it are that I can work around the shortcomings of a GPS/satellite/computer based "digital" call assignment system (see my comments above to Michael - Cleveland). As I told the aforementioned poster, it is no complaint, marry, it is an observation.

3. You might see a tip feature, but it would take Uber's removing its "tipping not necessary" statements from its advertising and a waiting period. I would not mind it. In reality, I have my own credit card terminal, so I can let the guy who "Sorry, I don't have any cash" tip me---not that he ever does, mind you.


----------



## Lack9133

Djc said:


> As a rider who used Uber alot before being a driver:
> 1. I thought tips were included but for the taxi option I added an auto 20% in the app. (Why this option doesnt exist for UberX etc is just silly).
> 2. I had no idea the percentage Uber took and the booking fee only went to Uber. I assumed drivers were making bank based on the fares I was paying - average $10-27 for short to medium trips around the city hence why I looked into driving.
> 3. I thought uber pool the more passengers driver picked up the more he made. Also thought that it must suck to only get one pick up as so cheap on passenger side vs a regular fare. No idea about the pool rate or that drivers dont make a combination of all the fares passengers pay.
> 4. After finding out tips were not included its a pain in the a** to tip because hardly carry cash or dont have small change or just am in a rush and dont have time to deal with all that. Now I use Lyft as a passenger as I can just tip $2 in the app easy by clicking a button. I can also tip later after the ride if im.busy or have things in my hand.
> 5. I didn't realize driver's aren't paid for waiting on pick up or that the rate was so small that its not worth waiting for long.
> 6. I didn't realize all the goodies - water etc were not expensed by Uber and came out of driver's pockets (I see now why hardly anyone has water anymore vs a couple years ago).
> 7. I thought all drivers were really busy because everyone uses Uber (now Lyft too) but didn't realize how there is an over supply of drivers for most parts of the day.
> 8. I didn't think about driving rules for pick up locations but was fine to walk to the car or cross a street unlike some entitled riders.
> 
> This is pretty much how most riders think as they are uninformed or don't care as they have never been on the driver's side. Its like if you ever worked in a bar or restaurant you always tip well even if you don't really have the extra cash.
> 
> Customers have to be properly educated if drivers are ever to see regular tips and even then without in app tipping most millennials or people who like Uber because there is no physical transaction will not carry change just to tip. What uber needs to do is set up an auto tip percentage like they have for taxis that rider can change for that ride when give us star ratings or a simple in app tips system like Lyft.
> 
> Problem is one of the reasons why "tip is included" rhetoric came out is because Travis doesn't like to tip and created a system to get around town without the issues of calling for or hailing and TIPPING a cab or livery dtiver. I'm sure he's one of those that doesn't tip at a bar and leaves a token tip at dinner.


You're one smart individual. Passengers think because we are drivers, it is a part of our job to:
1) Should wait endless amount of time for them to finish getting ready even though we are not getting paid to do so.
2) Provide snacks and gum out of our own pocket. 
3) Drive them to outlying areas where we have no chance at a return fare where our time and costs doubles.

I've talked to many Uber drivers who swore off taxi's and the minute they started driving, they completely understood why taxi regulations are the way they are. Just like any other profession, make people work in that industry for a month and they will completely understand what people go through, why people act the way they do and why regulations are a certain way. Driver attitudes and income philosophies are nothing but drivers responding to the conditions put in front of them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberPissed said:


> PS - lets just say that Uber loses, the lawsuit, and now you are all deemed employees of uber. Is that what you really want?
> 
> Think about that.


uh - ok...
let's see:
Uber pays 7.5% of earnings to Social Security on my behalf (saving me 7.5%): _check_
Uber pays for all or a portion of my expenses: _check_
Uber covers me with a Workers Comp policy that protect if I am injured on the job: _check_
Uber pays for my state and federal unemployment insurance: _check_
Uber provides paid health insurance options to me: _check_
Uber provides FMLA, Overtime and minimum wage benefits and protections as provided for under the FLSA: _check_

With that, I might even consider working full-time instead of part-time.
And I'd be willing to submit my anticipated work hours a week in advance - the way that Lyft used to request from me.

Under those conditions, I'd be happy to accept all ride requests and cancel only those rides which presented a danger to me.

What would make me stop driving is if:
a) Uber decided to set my schedule for me.
b) The pay was so low that it wouldn't be worth it to me.​That just wouldn't work for me (personally) - so I'd have to quit driving.
But for others, it would work.

Ideally - I'd like the OPTION of being either an IC or a W2 employee.
I suspect many drivers would opt to remain ICs - but others would be happy to give up their independence in exchange for the benefits and security of employment.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Lack9133 said:


> I've talked to many Uber drivers who swore off taxi's.


It took my running maybe three, but certainly no more than that, UberX trips to know that I was better off driving the taxi, as a rule. There are a few very narrow and specific conditions under which I am better off driving UberX than the taxi, but, as a rule, I am better off driving the taxi. This is why I drive UberX under specific conditions. Usually, it is slightly more than enough to keep me in the game. It does help me that I own the cab.

When UberX first launched, here, many drivers in the two largest suburban companies parked their rental cabs and went to UberX. The rates were not bad, back then. Almost anyone who could frost a mirror could get a car. If he did not have one, and, even if his credit was somewhat less than stellar, if he could frost a mirror, he could go to one of these "Buy Here, Pay Here" places and get a dinged up seven year old Camry and his payments would be less than what he was paying to that company in rent. Even after the first few rounds of "GREAT NEWS!", he was still better off with those lower rates than he was with either of those suburban companies. The two companies of which I type historically have mistreated horribly their drivers and bled them dry. The ownership of those companies did everything that they could to stop Uber, but, in vain. The best that they can get is to have the Police and Sheriff Deputies harass TNC drivers, which, they do.

Sadly for the drivers, after several more rounds of "New and Exciting" Rates, the money was better in the rental cab, despite the high costs of driving and the companies' mistreating the drivers. Most of those drivers have since gone crawling back to their old companies. There are some who still stick it out, so there are still some rental cabs sitting on those yards


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And I'd be willing to submit my anticipated work hours a week in advance - the way that Lyft used to request from me.


Lyft used to ask you that? Did Uber ever do that?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Lyft used to ask you that? Did Uber ever do that?


No that I am aware of.

Yes, I did used to do that - I figured it could only help them manage the business... 
With Lyft, you'd log in to your 'dashboard' over the weekend and and check off the days and hours you planned on working the next week.


----------



## Lack9133

Another Uber Driver said:


> It took my running maybe three, but certainly no more than that, UberX trips to know that I was better off driving the taxi, as a rule. There are a few very narrow and specific conditions under which I am better off driving UberX than the taxi, but, as a rule, I am better off driving the taxi. This is why I drive UberX under specific conditions. Usually, it is slightly more than enough to keep me in the game. It does help me that I own the cab.
> 
> When UberX first launched, here, many drivers in the two largest suburban companies parked their rental cabs and went to UberX. The rates were not bad, back then. Almost anyone who could frost a mirror could get a car. If he did not have one, and, even if his credit was somewhat less than stellar, if he could frost a mirror, he could go to one of these "Buy Here, Pay Here" places and get a dinged up seven year old Camry and his payments would be less than what he was paying to that company in rent. Even after the first few rounds of "GREAT NEWS!", he was still better off with those lower rates than he was with either of those suburban companies. The two companies of which I type historically have mistreated horribly their drivers and bled them dry. The ownership of those companies did everything that they could to stop Uber, but, in vain. The best that they can get is to have the Police and Sheriff Deputies harass TNC drivers, which, they do.
> 
> Sadly for the drivers, after several more rounds of "New and Exciting" Rates, the money was better in the rental cab, despite the high costs of driving and the companies' mistreating the drivers. Most of those drivers have since gone crawling back to their old companies. There are some who still stick it out, so there are still some rental cabs sitting on those yards


First off, let me expand on my quote of mine you mentioned. I was referring to Uber drivers who swore off taxi's from a passenger standpoint. When Uber came around and they started driving, they understood why taxi's were hated but also saw the other side of the coin on why drivers do and act the way they do.

Secondly, You couldn't be more correct. The same thing happened in my market. When Uber came around, it was the fancy new toy that no one could get enough of. Many drivers left the taxi companies to find that grass wasn't exactly greener on the other side. But as the years went on and Uber drivers started adjusting their ways to make money, the old philosophies of how to profit as a driver started showing up again and many passengers started complaining that Uber is really just becoming another taxi company. Drivers stopped buying brand new vehicles and instead bought eight year old used Accords. Drivers begun turning down unprofitable trips. Quality drivers realized driving wasn't worth their time and left all together. Many drivers returned to driving a taxi. As the market started balancing itself out, the shine of that new toy gradually wore off as many started realizing that no matter how you dispatch the trips, you cannot change human behavior and many of the issues you saw with taxi's are slowly starting to creep back into the forefront.


----------



## Undermensch

tohunt4me said:


> Government
> Government legislation gave us air bags that kill.


Whether you want government and the courts, or not, you've got them and you always will.

I don't think we need additional extra-governmental people also trying to govern us while making themselves fantastically rich. We've got enough of that already.


----------



## Undermensch

Another Uber Driver said:


> He is not trolling. You, however are namecalling. Namecalling is the last resort of someone who clearly is in error. Further, you are resorting to another tactic that you have displayed previously: appointing yourself the referee and declaring yourself the winner.
> 
> He is correct when he states that the "lower" is not applicable. You would be aware, perhaps, of the concept of "unenforceable"? What might be open to debate, however is, does unenforceable content void only some, or all, of a given provision? Do the parties treat the whole provision as non-existent, or, do the parties treat as non-existent only that which is not enforceable?
> 
> Participants in any contest, be it a "real debate" or some other contest, do not get to referee, as well. Play or referee; pick one, you can not be both.
> 
> Namecalling is a recognised tactic mostly in schoolyard debates. Schoolyard debates rarely are "real".


How on earth can you declare lower not being applicable as if this is decided fact?


----------



## Undermensch

chi1cabby said:


> STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC!


https://uberpeople.net/threads/usa-...o-get-less-than-25-from-big-settlement.74700/

Read it and weep.

It was completely on-topic. The only thing I got wrong was the number of sandwiches you could buy with the settlement funds. $25 is what, meal deals for 4?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Undermensch said:


> How on earth can you declare lower not being applicable as if this is decided fact?


***Presses "HUH?" button.***


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> With Lyft, you'd log in to your 'dashboard' over the weekend and and check off the days and hours you planned on working the next week.


Hmmmmmm, right..........................Thank goodness that Lyft no longer does this and Uber never did, at least not that either you or I am aware. How do I know when I am going to work, especially TNC?



Lack9133 said:


> First off, let me expand on my quote of mine you mentioned. I was referring to Uber drivers who swore off taxi's from a passenger standpoint. When Uber came around and they started driving, they understood why taxi's were hated but also saw the other side of the coin on why drivers do and act the way they do.
> 
> Secondly, You couldn't be more correct. The same thing happened in my market. When Uber came around, it was the fancy new toy that no one could get enough of. the shine of that new toy gradually wore off as many started realizing that no matter how you dispatch the trips, you cannot change human behavior and many of the issues you saw with taxi's are slowly starting to creep back into the forefront.


In this market, at least, we never had too many customers who absolutely swore off taxis. There were one or two, but, anyone who expected otherwise is delusional. I do wonder if the order of appearance and levels of Uber had anything to do with it.

The first Uber that appeared here was Uber Black. The base rates were almost twice the cab fares. With surges, it easily hit six times the fare. Still, people were using it because few of the cabs accepted credit cards, here. I accepted them, but I was in the minority and only a part time driver. The next level of Uber that appeared was Uber Taxi. Uber users were so happy. They did not have to pay limousine rates, they did not need cash and could enjoy the advantages of summoning a taxi through the Uber application.

I do well on Uber Taxi, here. I am delighted to have it, for more than one reason. People here still use taxis and still did, even in Uber's early days. While I am the last one to agree that any government compulsionism is any good, I do suspect that the requirement that taxis here accept credit cards did help the drivers, despite the major balking at the plastic early on. Further, it did not help that the Taxicab Commission failed to do its homework by conducting adequate field testing. Several of the "approved" terminals were, as the newspeak term is, "epic fails". The thing would fail to work, the driver went to the place where they installed them, waited for hours, had the repairs made, watched the technician test it several times, went back to work only to have the thing fail for the first customer. By that time, the shop was closed so he was out of business for the day. Several of those readers were tied into the meters, which meant that if the reader failed, so did the meter. I saw more than a few grown men in tears, because they had been unable to work for over seven days and there was no food in the pantry, the childrens' shoes had holes in them and the Sheriff's Deputies were knocking on the door with Eviction Notice in hand (most of the drivers live in the suburbs, here).

Mine, fortunately was not tied into the meter, so, when it failed, I simply used my own terminal. Several of these processors were run out of business. Still, after everything settled, and the terminals failed only with regularity instead of all the time, customers were happy that they no longer needed cash. The major thing here is the convenience. I do not know how many times I have been driving up, say, Connecticut Avenue, seen someone on the kerb who was playing with some electronic contraption, saw him look up, see me, put up his hand then do a few quick punches on the screen and get into the cab. All of them were aborting an Uber summons of some sort. There are many people here who use Uber only if they can not hail a cab.

Some of the other things on which you remarked are not inapplicable to this market, either. This post is too long, as it is, so I will address them in another post, if appropriate.


----------



## uberlift

If you want to object to the proposed class settement, write Judge Chen at [email protected] Make the subject of the email C13-3826 EMC O'Connor v. Uber


----------



## Lack9133

Another Uber Driver said:


> Hmmmmmm, right..........................Thank goodness that Lyft no longer does this and Uber never did, at least not that either you or I am aware. How do I know when I am going to work, especially TNC?
> 
> In this market, at least, we never had too many customers who absolutely swore off taxis. There were one or two, but, anyone who expected otherwise is delusional. I do wonder if the order of appearance and levels of Uber had anything to do with it.
> 
> The first Uber that appeared here was Uber Black. The base rates were almost twice the cab fares. With surges, it easily hit six times the fare. Still, people were using it because few of the cabs accepted credit cards, here. I accepted them, but I was in the minority and only a part time driver. The next level of Uber that appeared was Uber Taxi. Uber users were so happy. They did not have to pay limousine rates, they did not need cash and could enjoy the advantages of summoning a taxi through the Uber application.
> 
> I do well on Uber Taxi, here. I am delighted to have it, for more than one reason. People here still use taxis and still did, even in Uber's early days. While I am the last one to agree that any government compulsionism is any good, I do suspect that the requirement that taxis here accept credit cards did help the drivers, despite the major balking at the plastic early on. Further, it did not help that the Taxicab Commission failed to do its homework by conducting adequate field testing. Several of the "approved" terminals were, as the newspeak term is, "epic fails". The thing would fail to work, the driver went to the place where they installed them, waited for hours, had the repairs made, watched the technician test it several times, went back to work only to have the thing fail for the first customer. By that time, the shop was closed so he was out of business for the day. Several of those readers were tied into the meters, which meant that if the reader failed, so did the meter. I saw more than a few grown men in tears, because they had been unable to work for over seven days and there was no food in the pantry, the childrens' shoes had holes in them and the Sheriff's Deputies were knocking on the door with Eviction Notice in hand (most of the drivers live in the suburbs, here).
> 
> Mine, fortunately was not tied into the meter, so, when it failed, I simply used my own terminal. Several of these processors were run out of business. Still, after everything settled, and the terminals failed only with regularity instead of all the time, customers were happy that they no longer needed cash. The major thing here is the convenience. I do not know how many times I have been driving up, say, Connecticut Avenue, seen someone on the kerb who was playing with some electronic contraption, saw him look up, see me, put up his hand then do a few quick punches on the screen and get into the cab. All of them were aborting an Uber summons of some sort. There are many people here who use Uber only if they can not hail a cab.
> 
> Some of the other things on which you remarked are not inapplicable to this market, either. This post is too long, as it is, so I will address them in another post, if appropriate.


What you run into in your market is not much different than in mine. I work in a very social market where perception is everything, and in the beginning, I would see a lot of millennials who would rather pay 3x surge than jump in a taxi right in front of them. As time has moved on, as you mentioned, a lot more people will put down their phone and waive their hand if a cab is right in front of them. It's why I still drive taxi's and use that tool to my advantage.

As for the credit card issue, I have seen many drivers put themselves out of business for not accepting cards. There is too much competition and too few trips for the amount of drivers in the market to turn anything down based on the type of payment one is using. If you're going to be picky on the payment method, you're going to have a hard time making your lease payment.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> First off, let me expand on my quote of mine you mentioned. I was referring to Uber drivers who swore off taxi's from a passenger standpoint. When Uber came around and they started driving, they understood why taxi's were hated but also saw the other side of the coin on why drivers do and act the way they do.
> 
> Secondly, You couldn't be more correct. The same thing happened in my market. When Uber came around, it was the fancy new toy that no one could get enough of. Many drivers left the taxi companies to find that grass wasn't exactly greener on the other side. But as the years went on and Uber drivers started adjusting their ways to make money, the old philosophies of how to profit as a driver started showing up again and many passengers started complaining that Uber is really just becoming another taxi company. Drivers stopped buying brand new vehicles and instead bought eight year old used Accords. Drivers begun turning down unprofitable trips. Quality drivers realized driving wasn't worth their time and left all together. Many drivers returned to driving a taxi. As the market started balancing itself out, the shine of that new toy gradually wore off as many started realizing that no matter how you dispatch the trips, you cannot change human behavior and many of the issues you saw with taxi's are slowly starting to creep back into the forefront.


Well put... and I think this is why Uber does not exactly bend-over backwards to keep drivers long-term.
Newbies go over-board with everything from freebies to pickup travel and wait times.
Experienced drivers know better.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Hmmmmmm, right..........................Thank goodness that Lyft no longer does this and Uber never did, at least not that either you or I am aware. How do I know when I am going to work, especially TNC?


It was no big deal... and it wasn't required.
Most weeks I know when I am going to be available and am planning to drive 
(after work mon-fri till midnight and some weekend hours)


----------



## UberPissed

After you said check check check...



Michael - Cleveland said:


> uh - ok...
> What would make me stop driving is if:
> a) Uber decided to set my schedule for me.
> b) The pay was so low that it wouldn't be worth it to me.​


​
An employee/er relationship would be the death of this for drivers. Uber would want commitment from drivers. You probably wouldn't be able to - take trips only on surge, take a ride on the way to the store, on the way home from dropping someone off at the airport, etc.

I think the current structure is the way to go. Uber would "hire" us but pay minimum wage.

No offense to anyone else posting here. I just don't find the settlement surprising. I do think it is beneficial.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberPissed said:


> After you said check check check...
> An employee/er relationship would be the death of this for drivers. Uber would want commitment from drivers. You probably wouldn't be able to - take trips only on surge, take a ride on the way to the store, on the way home from dropping someone off at the airport, etc. I think the current structure is the way to go. Uber would "hire" us but pay minimum wage.​


A lot of people here make assumptions about what Uber will do...
Most of us are wrong.
Also, most of the time, Uber doesn't even know what it's going to do. But in this case, I personally believe they have a contingency plan in place that goes beyond appeals to the Supreme Court. (but I could be wrong about that, too)


> No offense to anyone else posting here. I just don't find the settlement surprising. I do think it is beneficial.


No offense taken here... I agree with you. 
I'm a 15%er (see poll results)


----------



## UberPissed

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No offense taken here... I agree with you.
> I'm a 15%er (see poll results)


I think the problem with some of the people is that they just have way too high of expectations from Uber, which is natural, given how little the company would need to do to make meaningful changes. Hell, I think they could add a tip button and 1/2 of the people here would be happy (for a day, then move on to something else to gripe about).

My biggest gripe is the unilateral changes that the company makes. It would be an administrative nightmare, but rate cuts should not happen in 1 days. If they do a rate cut, they should implement them over a period of time. At least make it seem like you care about drivers. For example, a 20% rate cut would be phased in over 4 quarters, and each quarter, the driver would make 5% less, which would give them time to get their proverbial crap in order. There are many innovative things the company can do, but they won't.

I'll direct you to Chris Rock's statement about minimum wage - minimu wage - If I could pay you less, I would, but it's agains the law.

Uber will continue to operate in a manner that recognizes that partners only do this for 6-8 months, and there is no incentive in creating longstanding relationships with its drivers. This unfortunately will never change.... And unfortunately so Weill any meaningful change.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberPissed said:


> I think the problem with some of the people is that they just have way too high of expectations from Uber, which is natural, given how little the company would need to do to make meaningful changes. Hell, I think they could add a tip button and 1/2 of the people here would be happy (for a day, then move on to something else to gripe about).


LOL! well said - but true. I've never understood the whole lack of tip button thing - it just doesn't make sense. On the one hand, the company says it wants the transaction to be 'cashless' - but on the other, they inconvenience their riders and create an awkward situation for the driver by not providing the option to add a tip via the app. It makes no sense. It's pure Kalanick 'sociopathism' _<--- trademarked_


> My biggest gripe is the unilateral changes that the company makes. It would be an administrative nightmare, but rate cuts should not happen in 1 days. If they do a rate cut, they should implement them over a period of time. At least make it seem like you care about drivers. For example, a 20% rate cut would be phased in over 4 quarters, and each quarter, the driver would make 5% less, which would give them time to get their proverbial crap in order. There are many innovative things the company can do, but they won't.


What - are you kidding? Uber makes rate changes faster than that... they'd have to 'roll-it-out' over an hour and a half. I don't care about it taking effect all at once - but a week's NOTICE might be nice.


> Uber will continue to operate in a manner that recognizes that partners only do this for 6-8 months, and there is no incentive in creating longstanding relationships with its drivers.


Exactly.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Lack9133 said:


> If you're going to be picky on the payment method, you're going to have a hard time making your lease payment.


.......or if you are a private owner, as am I, you will not even make your stand dues (which are less than rent). I will not even discuss insurance payments, mechanic bills (although as mine is a 2015 and has been on the street all of ten months, that has not popped up, Y-E-T.)



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Newbies go over-board with everything from freebies to pickup travel and wait times. Experienced drivers know better.


Indeed they do. Truthfully, I knew better even as a TNC rookie, but, then, I had parallel experience. I did go chasing every trip offered me the first day or so, just to get used to the thing, even though I knew that I was wasting money. I simply wanted to make sure that I knew how the thing worked.



UberPissed said:


> Hell, I think they could add a tip button and 1/2 of the people here would be happy (for a day, then move on to something else to gripe about).


Is not sleep wonderful? It allows some people to cry only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four.


----------



## goon70056

From what I can tell, the deactivation policy isn't any clearer now than it was before.


----------



## Tequila Jake

I find it interesting that the attorney's excuse/explanation for settling mentions the tipping policy change 3 times. Uber's message does not mention it at all.

Also, Uber's message seems to indicate they think the reason driver's decline pings is because they have a kid sick at school or are taking a bathroom break. There's no acknowledgement that it's usually because the ping is 20 minutes away with no clue as to the destination.


----------



## Tequila Jake

goon70056 said:


> From what I can tell, the deactivation policy isn't any clearer now than it was before.


The new policy is very clear:

1. You can't get deactivated for low acceptance rate. However, Uber might put you in timeout for an unspecified amount of time (I assume this will fall somewhere between 10 minutes and 365 days).

2. You can get deactivated for any other reason Uber makes up.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Tequila Jake said:


> 2. You can get deactivated for any other reason Uber makes up.


That is one thing that has not changed and is not atypical of this type of contract.


----------



## UberPissed

Hopefully this is progress. Uber could save millions in attorneys fees by having clear set policies. But that would go against the culture of not giving a F.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> That is one thing that has not changed and is not atypical of this type of contract.


Except it has changed. There is now, or will be, an appeal's process.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Yes, there is an appeal process, but if they de-activate you just to do it, how do you appeal it?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Yes, there is an appeal process, but if they de-activate you just to do it, how do you appeal it?


It's all new... we'll have to see how it goes in Seattle - or wherever they are starting it. Being new, it will take time to set up - and more time to get it working relatively smoothly (because nothing ever works perfectly at first - especially not with Uber).

I know that if it were me, I'd just go down to the local Uber office first.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I know that if it were me, I'd just go down to the local Uber office first.


.............as would I, if either Uber or Lyft were to de-activate me just to do it.

I have been through similar, but on the other side of it. When my cab company was making some changes, between 1988 and 1990, we did give the drivers a new contract. One of the terms allowed Management to cancel a driver's contract for "no reason".

The first time that Senior Management did this, it was against a troublemaker driver who was, among other things, trying to challenge a 1989 charter amendment that changed the Company from a not-for-profit membership association back to a capital stock company, as it was when it was started in 1926 (it became the not-for-profit in 1928).

The Board of Directors decided to give the driver a "show cause" hearing. I have no idea why it did this, but do it, it did. It was a farce. They had their high-powered lawyer there, who kept having to intervene. If you do invoke the "no reason" cancellation provision, you must be careful not to give a reason.

It is similar to dismissing an employee without cause in an employment-at-will state (which the District of Columbia is, oddly enough). Often, you use that to get rid of a troublesome employee. If you do fire an employee without cause, you must pay the unemployment for twenty-six weeks, but, sometimes it is better to absorb that cost and be rid of an employee. If you fire for cause, first you face the unemployment hearing, then, you could be sued. Even if you prevail in court, you still pay the legal bills, which usually are far in excess of unemployment insurance payments for twenty six weeks on a minimum wage employee. If, however, you do fire without giving a reason, you must be careful not to give a reason in subsequuent communications, written or verbal, with anyone except maybe, your own attorney. You must stick to the line "It is the decision of the Management of this firm that _______________is no longer employed here". Further, you must implement a "confirm or deny" policy with regard to references.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> .............as would I, if either Uber or Lyft were to de-activate me just to do it.
> 
> I have been through similar, but on the other side of it. When my cab company was making some changes, between 1988 and 1990, we did give the drivers a new contract. One of the terms allowed Management to cancel a driver's contract for "no reason".
> 
> The first time that Senior Management did this, it was against a troublemaker driver who was, among other things, trying to challenge a 1989 charter amendment that changed the Company from a not-for-profit membership association back to a capital stock company, as it was when it was started in 1926 (it became the not-for-profit in 1928).
> 
> The Board of Directors decided to give the driver a "show cause" hearing. I have no idea why it did this, but do it, it did. It was a farce. They had their high-powered lawyer there, who kept having to intervene. If you do invoke the "no reason" cancellation provision, you must be careful not to give a reason.
> 
> It is similar to dismissing an employee without cause in an employment-at-will state (which the District of Columbia is, oddly enough). Often, you use that to get rid of a troublesome employee. If you do fire an employee without cause, you must pay the unemployment for twenty-six weeks, but, sometimes it is better to absorb that cost and be rid of an employee. If you fire for cause, first you face the unemployment hearing, then, you could be sued. Even if you prevail in court, you still pay the legal bills, which usually are far in excess of unemployment insurance payments for twenty six weeks on a minimum wage employee. If, however, you do fire without giving a reason, you must be careful not to give a reason in subsequuent communications, written or verbal, with anyone except maybe, your own attorney. You must stick to the line "It is the decision of the Management of this firm that _______________is no longer employed here". Further, you must implement a "confirm or deny" policy with regard to references.


TNC drivers, are not employees in most jurisdictions (as in here in Ohio - by state law) - so 'at-will' policies are not applicable. And the program being tested by Uber is (somewhat remarkably) a hearing before a panel of drivers - not Uber employees. I can't imagine that driver-panel decisions/recommendtions regarding deactivations for 'legal;' or 'safety' issues would be given any weight... but I can imagine Uber otherwise deferring to the conclusions reached by a panel a drivers.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> TNC drivers, are not employees in most jurisdictions (as in here in Ohio - by state law) - so 'at-will' policies are not applicable.


I do not know any jurisdiction where the TNC driver is an employee. My comparison was strictly a parallel. The major point was if you terminate an employee for no reason, or if you cancel a contract for no reason, do not give a reason.

It should prove difficult for Uber to present its case at any hearing where it terminates a driver's contract for "no reason". In fact, given how much money that Uber has, and, given the high powered lawyers that it must have, I am surprised that Uber did not exempt a "no reason" cancellation from any appeals process.

Still, given that it is Uber and that it has a history of negotiating in bad faith and reneging on its agreements, I would not be surprised to see Uber try to take "no reason" cancellations out of the process. If that happens, Uber may have to pay, finally, for negotiating in bad faith or failing to live up to its end of the bargain.

*EDITORIAL NOTE: *Check my news article links in my topic, in NEWS section about why Uber will not add a tip option. Uber, once more, in violation of the settlement agreement, is declaring that tips are not necessary. Once again, Uber negotiates in bad faith.

Mrs. Liss Riordan?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not know any jurisdiction where the TNC driver is an employee. My comparison was strictly a parallel.


I was alluding to the difference between CA-FL (where the labor boards at one point ruled a driver was to be viewed as employees for the purpose of unemployment benefits) and OH where the state law declares that all TNC drivers are Independent Contractors.


> The major point was if you terminate an employee for no reason, or if you cancel a contract for no reason, do not give a reason.
> 
> It should prove difficult for Uber to present its case at any hearing where it terminates a driver's contract for "no reason". In fact, given how much money that Uber has, and, given the high powered lawyers that it must have, I am surprised that Uber did not exempt a "no reason" cancellation from any appeals process.
> 
> Still, given that it is Uber and that it has a history of negotiating in bad faith and reneging on its agreements, I would not be surprised to see Uber try to take "no reason" cancellations out of the process. If that happens, Uber may have to pay, finally, for negotiating in bad faith or failing to live up to its end of the bargain.
> 
> *EDITORIAL NOTE: *Check my news article links in my topic, in NEWS section about why Uber will not add a tip option. Uber, once more, in violation of the settlement agreement, is declaring that tips are not necessary. Once again, Uber negotiates in bad faith.
> 
> Mrs. Liss Riordan?


How can Uber be in violation of a settlement agreement that hasn't been put in place yet?


----------



## HONEST UBER DRIVER

FL labor boards forced Uber to list their "partners", as "employees"? Did I hear that right? This might indicate why your credit report might list you as an "Uber (your city here)" employee, even though the contract says Independent Contractor (IC).


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How can Uber be in violation of a settlement agreement that hasn't been put in place yet?


Bad faith.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

HONEST UBER DRIVER said:


> FL labor boards forced Uber to list their "partners", as "employees"? Did I hear that right?


N0 - not that I am aware of (but I didn't follow the FL case(s) very closely at all.
From what I understand, one or more drivers filed unemployment claims in FL and the FL board ruled that for the purpose of the claim, that specific driver (or those drivers) were employees and should be allowed to collect unemployment benefits... I also thought I read that the board subsequently overturned its ruling.


> This might indicate why your credit report might list you as an "Uber (your city here)" employee, even though the contract says Independent Contractor (IC).


I doubt that's the reason. What shows up on your credit report as 'employer' is whatever you put down on your credit application - which is what gets reported to the CRAs (Credit Reporting Agencies - like TRW, Experian, erc.).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Bad faith.


So ... hehe... you think that because a company may not live up to something in the future, to which they have agreed to today, that has not yet been approved by the court, that that constitutes bad faith? Ok... I get it.


----------



## SCdave

Another Uber Driver said:


> Bad faith.


When did Travis K. start a Rock band - "Bad Faith"?

Thought this thread was on the the Good Faith Settlement. [email protected]'m confused again


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> So ... hehe... you think that because a company may not live up to something in the future, to which they have agreed to today, that has not yet been approved by the court, that that constitutes bad faith? Ok... I get it.


By their actions, they are demonstrating that, at best, they _*may*_ not live up to it. Until someone shows me otherwise, or until they act differently, it demonstrates that they have *no intention* of living up to it.

If you consider this:

Uber released its recent anti-tipping propaganda after it announced its agreement to stop with the anti-tipping propaganda;

Uber has stopped counting low acceptance rates against drivers after it announced its agreement to stop counting low acceptance rates against drivers;

the two actions are contradictory. In one, Uber is acting contrary to that which it agreed; in the second, in accord. Perhaps that does not make you suspicious, but it does me. When I consider Uber's bad faith negotiating with the D.C. City Council in 2012, it makes me even more suspicious.

So yes, I have sound reasons to call it "bad faith".


----------



## Sacto Burbs

I've concluded that the lawyer decided that since Uber is appealing the California Labor Department decisions - which already ruled that drivers are employees - there is no need to fight that battle. Take what you can get and let the State of California defend its decision.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> By their actions, they are demonstrating that, at best, they _*may*_ not live up to it.


Not sure your (our) opinion of what we think is "bad-faith in the making" is relevant to a court.


----------



## Rachel Galindo

Shea47 said:


> Frankly if you were employees instead of freelance Uber would have to increase rate that would make Uber the same cost as a taxi and drivers would not make enough and riders would not use the service any longer.


Frankly, drivers are not making enough, and those driver that think that they are making enough, don't know the real costs and risks, and fool themselves undervaluing their assets depreciation. In several markets uber continues to buy drivers and is subsidizing rides, is like a charity programs they are running, but with whit uber's charity programs, drivers are not making enough, due to drivers over saturation and idling times had gotten longer. For how long do you think uber will continue to buy drivers and riders? Drivers are loosing cars and filing bankruptcy because is not easy to be driving continuously for several hour, and we are talking 12 to 20 hours daily.


----------



## chi1cabby

chi1cabby said:


> *#SelloutShannon*
> The Non-monetary components of the *Settlement* Paras 135 (a) - (h), such as written Deactivation Policy, Appeals Process for Deactivation & Drivers Association's, will sunset in 2 years at the latest.
> 
> View attachment 36935
> 
> View attachment 36931
> 
> View attachment 36932
> 
> View attachment 36933


*Uber's proposed class-action settlement leaves some dissatisfied*
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0XP1IH*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber May Have to Reveal Financial Secrets in Driver Settlement*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ions-secrecy-of-driver-pay-settlement-details*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Judge Orders Uber Settlement Objectors To File Single Objection: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...Redirected=true#sthash.ZskVpJ5F.GXu7ECXK.dpuf*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rachel Galindo said:


> Frankly, drivers are not making enough, and those driver that think that they are making enough, don't know the real costs and risks, and fool themselves undervaluing their assets depreciation. In several markets uber continues to buy drivers and is subsidizing rides, is like a charity programs they are running, but with whit uber's charity programs, drivers are not making enough, due to drivers over saturation and idling times had gotten longer. For how long do you think uber will continue to buy drivers and riders? Drivers are loosing cars and filing bankruptcy because is not easy to be driving continuously for several hour, and we are talking 12 to 20 hours daily.


I'd agree that *most* drivers (at least newer ones) don't know their full and total costs... but that's not true for many of us who've been doing this for a long time. And not everyone is seeing longer wait times - especially with the 'next ride' feature that Uber introduced. (see: https://uberpeople.net/threads/what-is-causing-increased-utilization-for-me.66903/). But it is different for everyone - and in different markets. As we say: YMMV


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber May Have to Reveal Financial Secrets in Driver Settlement*
> *http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ions-secrecy-of-driver-pay-settlement-details*


Gotta love it...
_"In a similar lawsuit against Lyft, Uber's chief competitor, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria denied that company's request to keep secret similar information. Chhabria ultimately rejected the proposed $12.25 million settlement offer because it represented only about 9 percent of the potential value of drivers' claims, a deal that he said "short-changed" drivers."_


----------



## Djc

See why this settlement is not enough, Uber already nullifying the right to earn tips. As I said they need to make it abundantly clear that drivers should be tipped the same way as is common place in other service industries. These same passengers tip elsewhere they just don't tip in Uber (or other rideshare apps) because Uber has made them think it is ok.

Uber email to riders in New York City:
"tips are not included nor are they expected on Uber."

"Nothing has changed,"

"As we've said for many years, being Uber means you don't need to tip. Of course, if you want to tip your driver-we estimate riders offer tips on only a very small number of trips-you're free to do so, and drivers are free to accept."

-Josh Mohrer, Uber's New York City general manager.

Article: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/28/11528730/uber-tipping-nyc-driver-settlement-lyft-juno

In addition, we need to see the destination prior to pick up preferably on ride request before acceptance "to ensure the system remains efficient and reliable for all riders"

And if I'm being honest the new deactivation policy still is not clear in parts under safety, fraud and other sections.

Everyone fighting needs to remember these things so we can actually get a meaningful settlement approved by the court. OR drastically increase the monetary penalty, otherwise see you at trial Uber.


----------



## Greguzzi

ginseng41 said:


> I'm hope that becomes more common. I hate that and have definitely canceled riders I've gotten a 2nd, lowered surge request from


Given that the request comes in without a rider name attached, how do you know the 2nd request is the same rider?


----------



## Greguzzi

Djc said:


> You said "IMO, your view of what SLR has accomplished is uneducated, uninformed and selfish." I know what she has accomplished but it is not enough. The deactivation policy is important *but being independent contractors drivers need to be able to see the destination to guage the value of the "contact" or trip.* In addition, the suit is about tips being included or not needed. Either the monetary penalty needs to be increased to compensate for lost tips past and future or the settlement should mandate that Uber includes a tip option in the app and clearly notifies its riders that tips are not included and drivers should be tipped at the riders discretion as is common place in all other service industries.


That would do more for drivers than any of what SLR obtained in this silly lawsuit. No contractor would take the job to remodel my kitchen if I told him to start without telling him a budget or how long he has to complete the job. There is a minimum necessary amount of information any contractor needs to assess an opportunity. Uber and Lyft do not give us that information.


----------



## Greguzzi

ubersuperbowlstrike said:


> If Uber was a technology company it would be a one time connection fee & they would have nothing else to do with the fare, miles , & transportation aspect. $5 to connect driver gets 100% that's an independent contractor, but they are not they are a new take on the Ponzi scheme using desperate humans as loss leaders to subsidize unprofitable cab rides to gain anti competitive market share to get their competition to go out of business.
> 
> It's the new economy billionaires burning thru millions a week giving "free" stuff to people so the to small to succeed are forced out of business because gasp they have to actually sell their products & services for more than they cost to make this thing called profit.


This.


----------



## Greguzzi

Lack9133 said:


> Every time Uber has to concede even the smallest amount of power to drivers, it is a win for the drivers. Unfortunately, a win for the drivers is a loss for the public. I can already see a small fraction of drivers going overboard with their tipping signage. One of the things passengers love about Uber is the fact that you feel like you're in a personal vehicle and if drivers have the ability to start placing signage in the back seat, that feeling of a personal vehicle will go away.


That feeling was an illusion all along. It's long past time for it to go away.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> That would do more for drivers than any of what SLR obtained in this silly lawsuit. No contractor would take the job to remodel my kitchen if I told him to start without telling him a budget or how long he has to complete the job. There is a minimum necessary amount of information any contractor needs to assess an opportunity. Uber and Lyft do not give us that information.


I am torn on the whole issue of 'destination discrimination'


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I am torn on the whole issue of 'destination discrimination'


I am not torn. If I am an employee being paid to drive people around, then the company has a right to send me where it will. If I am an independent contractor, I have the right to say no to jobs on which I will lose money.

And it is apropos to point out that a job I turn down might be profitable for one of the other independent contractors, dozens of whom are within blocks of my location. For example, non-surge airport runs here are money-losers, IMO, unless you want to sit in the FIFO waiting lot for 1-3 hours to get a return ride. I would turn such rides down every time, because I am not waiting in that lot when I could be making money downtown.

I am in the minority in thinking this way, though. That waiting lot is like a sea of Priuses, full of fools who are content to stand around yacking for hours while it is surging 15 miles away in the downtown. Why not give each of us the information we need to decide for ourselves about an offered "opportunity's" profitability? If nobody takes the ride, then Uber needs to up the incentives (eating the cost or passing it on to the customer) until one of us takes it. And somebody will, when the incentives warrant it.

After all, no one has a right to a ride in my car. If a potential rider choose to live in Possum Gulch, I am under no obligation to drive 20 minutes unpaid to get her/him, so s/he might have to pay more for a ride as a result of his/her choice to live in a remote place. That is how markets work.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> I am not torn. If I am an employee being paid to drive people around, then the company has a right to send me where it will. If I am an independent contractor, I have the right to say no to jobs on which I will lose money.
> 
> And it is apropos to point out that a job I turn down might be profitable for one of the other independent contractors, dozens of whom are within blocks of my location. For example, non-surge airport runs here are money-losers, IMO, unless you want to sit in the FIFO waiting lot for 1-3 hours to get a return ride. I would turn such rides down every time, because I am not waiting in that lot when I could be making money downtown.
> 
> I am in the minority in thinking this way, though. That waiting lot is like a sea of Priuses, full of fools who are content to stand around yacking for hours while it is surging 15 miles away in the downtown. Why not give each of us the information we need to decide for ourselves about an offered "opportunity's" profitability? If nobody takes the ride, then Uber needs to up the incentives (eating the cost or passing it on to the customer) until one of us takes it. And somebody will, when the incentives warrant it.
> 
> After all, no one has a right to a ride in my car. If a potential rider choose to live in Possum Gulch, I am under no obligation to drive 20 minutes unpaid to get her/him, so s/he might have to pay more for a ride as a result of his/her choice to live in a remote place. That is how markets work.


ok - I'm no longer 'torn'.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not sure your (our) opinion of what we think is "bad-faith in the making" is relevant to a court.


If Uber continues the behaviour after the judge approves the settlement, this can be used against Uber. I was not advocating hauling Uber into court, just
*Y-E-T*. I cite the behaviour merely to illustrate that Uber already is demonstrating bad faith, which is something that it has done previously.

If the judge does not approve the settlement, poor Ol' Mrs. Liss-Riordan might wind up having to go to trial, after all.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I am torn on the whole issue of 'destination discrimination'


Here is the rub on it. You have users who want to go to Neighbourhood A. Drivers do not want to go to Neighbourhood A. If the drivers know the destination before they accept it, and, the destination is Neighbourhood A, drivers will decline it. Thus, users who want to go to Neighbourhood A will be denied service. If Neighbourhood A is populated primarily by Ethnic Group X, it could give rise to a Federal lawsuit, as ethnicity is a protected class. Despite the fact that it is independent contractors who deny the service, Uber could be held responsible if a Federally protected class is denied service. The doctrine of "Disparate Impact" comes into play, among other things. As it is in Uber's interest to head off any lawsuit before it begins, especially if it is a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit.

Further, thus far, at least, Uber has dodged the bullet that has finally hit the cab companies after numerous shots taken at them. Most Legislators, Regulators and Judges hold cab companies responsible for the actions of their drivers, even if the drivers are independent contractors. When the D.C. rules were put into place, the then-Chair went as far as to comment that "cab companies will not be able to hide behind 'indpendent contractor' any more". The leap to hold the TNCs responsible for their drivers is not a large one. The last thing that Uber wants is to be held responsible for however many hundreds of thousands or even millions of drivers.

Most cab companies do not give destinations for the same reason. D.C. Taxicab Commission Rules specifically prohibit it.

I type from experience. I have been through this sort of thing more than once.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Most cab companies do not give destinations for the same reason. D.C. Taxicab Commission Rules specifically prohibit it.


And THAT is why I was torn. 
And that is also why Uber stopped showing drivers the destination before the start of the trip (via the waybill).


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I can't effing believe this. It specifically says Uber can opt out of everything they are "conceding" after 2 years. What an effing joke.

No way in hell Chen approves this shit.

I hate Shannons guts. What a loser.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

and lol @ $16 dollar payouts YAYYYYYYYY


----------



## uberdriverfornow

She basically gets paid ATLEAST $20 million to royally screw us over. YAYYYYYYYYY WOOHOOOO

let's not forget to mention that backroom money Uber put in her Cayman Island bank account


----------



## Another Uber Driver

uberdriverfornow said:


> $16 dollar payouts YAYYYYYYYY


*THAT much?
*
.......and here I thought that the class members would receive a voucher for buy one six inch Subway get one twelve inch free. Why, with sixteen bananas, you can get two foot long double meats, two large Coca Colas, two bags of potato chips and two cookies!


----------



## Greguzzi

Another Uber Driver said:


> Here is the rub on it. You have users who want to go to Neighbourhood A. Drivers do not want to go to Neighbourhood A. If the drivers know the destination before they accept it, and, the destination is Neighbourhood A, drivers will decline it. Thus, users who want to go to Neighbourhood A will be denied service. If Neighbourhood A is populated primarily by Ethnic Group X, it could give rise to a Federal lawsuit, as ethnicity is a protected class. Despite the fact that it is independent contractors who deny the service, Uber could be held responsible if a Federally protected class is denied service. The doctrine of "Disparate Impact" comes into play, among other things. As it is in Uber's interest to head off any lawsuit before it begins, especially if it is a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit.


In general, the cab companies own the cars. Yes, I know some cabbies own their own cars but Uber owns no cars at all, so the situations are not necessarily the same.

The bottom line is, it's my car, not Uber's. If somebody climbs in and tells me to go somewhere I do not want to go, that ride is over before it even begins. I did this just yesterday, when a Lyft passenger at 3:00, just as the surge was building in downtown, wanted me to drive him 30 miles away in really heavy traffic, to a town that does not have Lyft service, so there was zero chance of a return fare. The trip there would have been an hour, and the return trip would have been 2 hours. **** that. I told him no and had him exit my car. Then, I drove for about 4 hours and cleared about $160 before expenses. My car. My time. I'll do what's best for me.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Greguzzi said:


> In general, the cab companies own the cars. Yes, I know some cabbies own their own cars but Uber owns no cars at all, so the situations are not necessarily the same.


The company of which I was an Official that went through one of these lawsuits had about three-hundred fifty cabs affiliated with it, at the time. It did _*not own even ONE of those cabs*_. Just under seventy five per-cent were individually owned. Just over twenty five per-cent were rental cabs, but they were not owned by the cab company. They were owned by fleet owners who owned several cabs each and rented them out to drivers.

In fact, for much of that company's history, it did not own any cabs or owned very few of them.

Uber allows rented/leased vehicles to be used at all levels of Uber.

Most of the cabs in this City are privately owned. There are some cab companies that really are nothing more than glorified leasing companies, but they are the minority. The drivers here affiliate with the cab companies by contract.

This picture is changing, to be sure. For a long time, the Taxicab Commission was not issuing H-plates to individuals. It did issue a few to some corporations that made "arrangements" to secure them. The new drivers who were receiving hack licences were being told that they had to rent. The Commission put into place some more rules that controlled drivers' moving from one company to another. In addition, the regulators, here, have enacted new measures that are making it difficult for cab companies to stay in business. They want to get rid of eighty per-cent of the companies that are here. The purpose of all of the above was to allow both Regulators and Companies to exercise more control over the drivers. They were taking their lessons from ITLA, which is controlled by two of the worst cab driver raping companies in the suburbs, here.

Now, the Commission is issuing new H-plates, but only to drivers who purchase either a pure electric or an accessible. The financing for the p ure electric is beyond most cab driver's budgets, here. There have been (and may still be) grant/financing packages available for the accessibles, but the requirements are stringent. The driver has a quota of wheelchair trips that he must run in a certain period of time. That is just one of the requirements.

It should be remembered that even the rental drivers here, be they in the City of the suburbs, are not employees of the companies.

As it is now, in the City, the minority of the cabs are company owned, but that is changing.

The picture is different in the suburbs. There, the majority of cabs are company owned. Still, the drivers out there rent, they are not employees.

The situations are more alike than anyone would care to admit.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Another Uber Driver said:


> *THAT much?
> *
> .......and here I thought that the class members would receive a buy one six inch Subway get one twelve inch free. Why, with sixteen bananas, you can get two foot long double meats, two large Coca Colas, two bags of potato chips and two cookies!


How about $1 off the cost of a brand new cd ? WOOHOO


----------



## Txchick

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can't effing believe this. It specifically says Uber can opt out of everything they are "conceding" after 2 years. What an effing joke.
> 
> No way in hell Chen approves this shit.
> 
> I hate Shannons guts. What a loser.


Yep...exactly!!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

any of you guys remember that hilarious music cd settlement ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/29/class-action-cd-lawsuit-ends-in-refunds-1386.html


----------



## KevinH

chi1cabby said:


> The vehicle cost compensation, calculated at ¢57.5/Mile was part of the #UberLAWSUIT.
> 
> Per Uber, Drivers work an avg of 16 hours per week.
> Let's calculate avg speed at 20 MPH.
> Drivers Vehicle Cost Compensation: 385,000 x 16hrs x 20mph x $0.575 = $70,840,000/Week or $3.68B/Year in potential damages.
> In Lyft case, the *Judge rejected *a $12M settlement for $124M potential damages.
> So I doubt that Judge Chen is likely to approve a $100M settlement award for $3.6B per year in potential damages!


Chicabby; I think you may have overestimated the exposure of Uber. The 385,000 is for past and present drivers, so what is the average length of a driver's stay at Uber and what is the growth factor over the period (2009-present). I am sure that it is in the $Billions range.
So, are there any figures for the number of active drivers that qualify in the class for Cal & Mass for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011,2010,& 2029? The other elephant in the room is minimum wage, overtime, family leave and more. The settlement makes a long list of employee compensation components that drivers missed out on.


----------



## KevinH

uberdriverfornow said:


> She basically gets paid ATLEAST $20 million to royally screw us over. YAYYYYYYYYY WOOHOOOO
> 
> let's not forget to mention that backroom money Uber put in her Cayman Island bank account


That $25 mil goes to all attorneys in the effected suits. There are at least 16 affiliate suits that would be settled with this one agreement plus any NLRB suits. I propose cage fighting for all the attorneys to determine distribution.


----------



## KevinH

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I was alluding to the difference between CA-FL (where the labor boards at one point ruled a driver was to be viewed as employees for the purpose of unemployment benefits) and OH where the state law declares that all TNC drivers are Independent Contractors.


Help me with this. I thought the law was supposed to impact any future regulations that Ohio would put on TNCs. Has Ohio passed TNC regulations?

Additionally, will such State regulations that conflict with Federal Fair Labor Standards Act rulings and standards, enforceable? Furthermore, if the NLRB rules in favor of employee status, which they are inclined to do, will it nullify the state statutes?


----------



## chi1cabby

KevinH said:


> There are at least 16 affiliate suits that would be settled with this one agreement plus any NLRB suits.


I don't believe Misclassification lawsuits against Uber in other States are covered in this proposed settlement.


----------



## chi1cabby

KevinH said:


> The other elephant in the room is minimum wage, overtime, family leave and more. The settlement makes a long list of employee compensation components that drivers missed out on.


SLR discounted most of the Claims against Uber. You can read what potential value she assigned to each Claim against Uber in the Proposed Settlement in her Declaration to the Court:
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0N1atTXPM8FSUJGdWpCTU0zZmM/view?usp=drivesdk*


----------



## KevinH

chi1cabby said:


> I don't believe Misclassification lawsuits against Uber in other States are covered in this proposed settlement.


You are correct, here are the 16 mentioned in the suit that would be settled:
_a) Price et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. BC554512 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County);
b) Colopy et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-16-54996 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
c) Del Rio et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC (N.D. Cal.);
d) Berger et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00041-MEJ (N.D. Cal.);
e) In re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC (N.D. Cal.)1;
f) Ghazi et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-545532 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
g) Richardson et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. RG15775562 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County);
h) Zine et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. BC 591351 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
i) Narsis et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. BC599027 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County);
j) Tabola et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-16-550992 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
k) Barajas et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-16-550198 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
l) Aquino et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. BC608873 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County);
m) Adzhemyan et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. BC608874 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County);
n) Gollnick v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-547878 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County);
o) Mokeddes v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. RG16807483 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County); and
p) Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-546378 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco County)

_


----------



## Txchick

chi1cabby said:


> I don't believe Misclassification lawsuits against Uber in other States are covered in this proposed settlement.


Nope states outside of California & MA. are not covered in that settlement.


----------



## chi1cabby

*The Shadiest Slight Of Hand *in the Proposed Settlement is that SLR & Uber only used *"Rider Miles"*, not *"Trip Miles"* or *"On App Miles"* to calculate the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement Damages. By using "Rider Miles", the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement calculation was *undervalued by 1/2 - 2/3!
Motion for Preliminary Approval:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0N1atTXPM8FQllZcWZkWjlTZTQ/view?usp=drivesdk*










This *Slight of Hand* was also used in the *Proposed Lyft Settlement *and the *Judge's Order Rejecting* the Proposed Lyft Settlement.


----------



## chi1cabby

Does anyone have access to the Pacer System to look up the Case Files?
UberPissed Flarpy


----------



## KevinH

*"Uber does not have that data" seems to be a boldfaced lie!
*
Cramer/Krueger published Uber's own figures about Uber vehicle efficiency vs taxicab use.
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2016/03/uber-efficiency
UberX passenger onboard miles are between 55% and 64% in the best cases.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevinH said:


> Help me with this. I thought the law was supposed to impact any future regulations that Ohio would put on TNCs. Has Ohio passed TNC regulations?
> 
> Additionally, will such State regulations that conflict with Federal Fair Labor Standards Act rulings and standards, enforceable? Furthermore, if the NLRB rules in favor of employee status, which they are inclined to do, will it nullify the state statutes?


The FLSA cover 'employees'. 
The Dept of Labor (Wage & Hours div) and the IRS publish guidelines on how to determine if a worker is an employee or IC.
The state of OH (among other states) has defined, by law, that TNC drivers as Independent Contractors. Unless a court challenge to the classification takes place and finds that classification to be incorrect, then it stands. Should a federal court find that TNC drivers are in fact employees of the TNC, then (and only then) can the state law be challenged on grounds of conflict with federal law. The reality of the situation is that until Congress enacts new legislation covering gig economy labor - or the Supreme Court rules on their status under current law, the issue of classification will remain largely unsettled - and at the whim of any give federal district judge.

Yes, Ohio passed a TNC law last fall (mostly authored by Uber's lobbyists) which Gov Kasich signed into law in December - and that went into effect on March 23rd.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevinH said:


> There are at least 16 affiliate suits that would be settled with this one agreement plus any NLRB suits.


A case settlement for MA and CA is not the same as a case ruling - or dismissal with prejudice. What makes you think the settlement includes all of the other cases... is that in the settlement agreement (which has yet to receive approval or denial)?


----------



## KevinH

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A case settlement for MA and CA is not the same as a case ruling - or dismissal with prejudice. What makes you think the settlement includes all of the other cases... is that in the settlement agreement (which has yet to receive approval or denial)?


Yes, the list was from the settlement agreement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0N1atTXPM8FQ0h3aFJaaEJOREE/view


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevinH said:


> Yes, the list was from the settlement agreement:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0N1atTXPM8FQ0h3aFJaaEJOREE/view


See #28. Those are all CA and MA cases.


----------



## SD_Expedition

The mileage debacle is heavily in favor of Uber. I have detailed logs and it's 1/3* the actual of what Uber declares.


----------



## KevinH

Michael - Cleveland said:


> See #28. Those are all CA and MA cases.


?28?
Page number in the settlement? Post# in this thread?


----------



## riChElwAy

letter from my friend Tony to the writer at The Globe...

--------- Forwarded message ---------
From: "Anthony"
Date: May 2, 2016 2:11 AM
Subject: 310079915-Uber-Proposed-Settlement.pdf - Google Drive
To: <[email protected]>
Cc:

https://drive.google.com/a/rachelgal.com/file/d/0B0N1atTXPM8FQ0h3aFJaaEJOREE/view?pref=2&pli=1

Dear Mr. Adams

I had an opportunity to read the proposed uber settlement and it is terrible. This is a complete win for Uber and a financial gain for Shannon Liss-Riordan. It does next to nothing for drivers and further it discharges all other lawsuits in California and Massachusetts dealing with any type of employment issue.

I hope you will take the time to review the attached settlement above and do further reporting on this important matter. I am certain there are thousands of Uber drivers that would appreciate your time and attention to the details of this terrible settlement.

Thank you for your consideration and reporting.

Warm regards,
Tony


----------



## riChElwAy

Uber drivers can OBJECT to Shannon Liss-Riordan's trash... here is a screenshot from the settlement document ...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevinH said:


> ?28?
> Page number in the settlement? Post# in this thread?


Item # 28 in the settlement.

28. WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement shall cover all wage-and-hour claims and litigation now pending against Defendants* in California and Massachusetts*...​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> *The Shadiest Slight Of Hand *in the Proposed Settlement is that SLR & Uber only used *"Rider Miles"*, not *"Trip Miles"* or *"On App Miles"* to calculate the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement Damages. By using "Rider Miles", the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement calculation was *undervalued by 1/2 - 2/3!*


Not really. Since the proposed settlement leaves drivers as ICs... the only miles that count are the 'paid' miles.
If we were found to be employees, then the 'expense (dead) miles' would be included.
That's actually the crux of the classification suit - which is being 'punted' down the road with this settlement agreement... and is also one of the reasons that Chen may refuse to approve it - just as he (edit: Judge Chabria) refused to approve the settlement with Lyft. IF the court refuses the agreement, SLR and other attorneys will be on much more solid ground in pursuing their claims of misclassification - being able to cite the rulings of the court.


----------



## chi1cabby

This is about SLR & Uber incorrectly computing, & grossly undervaluing, the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement in the Potential Monetary Value of the Proposed Settlement.

Yes the Proposed Settlement punts on the Drivers' classification status of Employees/ICs. But the distinction between Employees vs ICs is not relevant in the computation of Potential Monetary Value in any of the various Claims against Uber in Proposed Settlement.


Michael - Cleveland said:


> Since the proposed settlement leaves drivers as ICs... the only miles that count are the 'paid' miles.


----------



## chi1cabby

Michael - Cleveland said:


> one of the reasons that Chen my refuse to approve it - just as he refused to approve the settlement with Lyft.


The #UberLAWSUIT is overseen by Judge Chen.
The Lyft Lawsuit is overseen by Judge Chabria.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> The #UberLAWSUIT is overseen by Judge Chen.
> The Lyft Lawsuit is overseen by Judge Chabria.


ah yes... indeed! Sorry about that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> But the distinction between Employees vs ICs is not relevant in the computation of Potential Monetary Value in any of the various Claims against Uber in Proposed Settlement.


It's a settlement between the parties. What is relevant is what they agree to be relevant.
They are agreeing that drivers, for the purposes of this agreement, are ICs.
Expenses are being calculated based on the 'ride' miles.
That's their agreement.
It sucks... but to agree on compensation for 'dead' miles, Uber would be conceding the point of worker classification - which they will not do until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.


----------



## SCdave

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's a settlement between the parties. What is relevant is what they agree to be relevant.
> They are agreeing that drivers, for the purposes of this agreement, are ICs.
> Expenses are being calculated based on the 'ride' miles.
> That's their agreement.
> It sucks... but to agree on compensation for 'dead' miles, Uber would be conceding the point of worker classification - which they will not do until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.


Yes, I understand your point. But cannot the dead miles be used to "value" the Ride Miles?


----------



## chi1cabby

Michael - Cleveland said:


> t's a settlement between the parties. What is relevant is what they agree to be relevant.
> They are agreeing that drivers, for the purposes of this agreement, are ICs.
> Expenses are being calculated based on the 'ride' miles.


So you agree that SLR & Uber electing to use the metric "Rider Miles" instead of "Trip Miles" or total "On App Miles" coupled with the BS excuse "Uber does not keep that data", has nothing to do with Drivers' Employee vs ICs status?









Imho, this underhanded slight of hand is just a way to grossly undervalue the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement computation in Potential Monetary Value of Proposed Settlement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SCdave said:


> Yes, I understand your point. But cannot the dead miles be used to "value" the Ride Miles?


great point - but Uber is claiming that they don't have the numbers* and presumably arguing that it's different for every driver and every trip... making it impossible to calculate - and they sure as hell won't 'agree' to use an 'average' for all drivers.

* If they don't have the numbers 
(which in IMO only means they won't calculate them based on the data they do have)
then there is no basis for being able to use them to calculate total miles - since there is no data to use in the calculation. ibso facto logic


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> So you agree that SLR & Uber electing to use the metric "Rider Miles" instead of "Trip Miles" or total "On App Miles" coupled with the BS excuse "Uber does not keep that data", has nothing to do with Drivers' Employee vs ICs status?
> View attachment 38239
> 
> 
> Imho, this underhanded slight of hand is just a way to grossly undervalue the Vehicle Expense Reimbursement computation in Potential Monetary Value of Proposed Settlement.


no - I don't... I think the whole point of employee vs IC is central to Uber's refusal to recognize non-ride miles.
Look at the last line of the section you quoted: "_...the court suggested that Plaintiffs may simply choose not to include those miles in their damages analysis_" ... that's not what SLR of plaintiffs wanted - but IMO there was no way Uber would have ever agreed to a settlement that included compensation for milesUber never intended to pay for - and did not contract with drivers to pay for.


----------



## SCdave

Michael - Cleveland said:


> great point - but Uber is claiming that they don't have the numbers - and presumably arguing that it's different for every driver and every trip... making it impossible to calculate - and they sure as hell won't 'agree' to use an 'average' for all drivers.


Of course, different for every driver. But Uber has the stats for average dead miles. And I'm sure Transportation Research Departments in various institutes, universities, and corporations have the numbers. (University of Michigan Transportation Institute http://www.umtri.umich.edu/)

If Uber, Detroit, and others are sinking Current Million$$ if not Future Billion$$ into TNC and Self Driving Car Research, total costs are known. And part of total costs are dead miles.

The statistics exist. There are multiple resources for these miles driven (dead miles, ride miles). They are done by experts that probably have high reliability.


----------



## chi1cabby

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "_...the court suggested that Plaintiffs may simply choose not to include those miles in their damages analysis_"


That's was based on the Uber assertion that "Uber does not keep that data".
Anyone with a passing familiarity with Uber should know that is a bald faced lie. 
Uber has every conceivable data point of every minute of every driver who's ever logged into the Partner App. Uber has this data for Insurance, law enforcement investigations, regulatory compliance and for it's own Big Data ambitions.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

chi1cabby said:


> That's was based on the Uber assertion that "Uber does not keep that data".
> Anyone with a passing familiarity with Uber should know that is a bald faced lie.


As I noted - just because they have the data to compile the information needed - doesn't mean they have the information.
They would need to be ordered by a court to compile the information.
It's legal avoidance. If it's found to be 'evasion' instead, the court can compel...
but it's a moot point. Uber will NEVER voluntarily agree to pay for miles they did not agree to pay for in the Driver Agreement with independent contractors.


----------



## riChElwAy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: May 2, 2016 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: c13-3826 emc O'Connor v. Uber
To: "Anthony"
Cc:

I have just efiled your email as an objection.
Thanks
Betty P. Lee
Courtroom Deputy to District Judge Edward M. Chen
United States District Court
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. No. (415) 522-2034

From: Anthony
To: [email protected]
Date: 05/02/2016 04:25 PM
Subject: Re: c13-3826 emc O'Connor v. Uber

To: The Honorable Judge Edward M. Chen

I was an Uber driver in Southern California for a short while. Although I
am no longer driving with Uber I have been following this case with great
interest.

After reviewing the settlement terms I am deeply disappointed and hope that
you have sufficient grounds to deny the terms of this settlement. The
proposed agreement does very little to help Uber drivers and does nothing
to address the central issue of the drivers employment status.
I was additionally dissatisfied to see that this settlement would also
discharge all other similar employment actions within California and
Massachusetts.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope that your are able to rule
against this settlement.

Warm regards
Tony


----------



## El Janitor

From the New York Times Article:

"Uber also agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline to accept requests for rides from passengers, a practice that previously would contribute negatively to a driver’s overall standing with the company. Instead, drivers may be temporarily logged out of the app and unable to accept new requests if they are “consistently not accepting trip requests.”

What? when I refuse requests it also dings my driver rating. They log you out of the app and ding you, is what they did to me. Or am I the only one who's been taking it in both from behind when I miss 2 requests consecutively?


----------



## UberPissed

chi1cabby said:


> Does anyone have access to the Pacer System to look up the Case Files?
> UberPissed Flarpy


I do. What do you want from it? It will be voluminous.


----------



## cho

UberPissed said:


> I do. What do you want from it? It will be voluminous.


Formula for how much a driver will receive as part of the settlement. Thank you if you would. I have well over 25000 miles with a rider in my car and it appears that there might be a cap of $8,000. I emailed SLR and they replied with a vague non answer. Thank you if you would.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Coachman said:


> In particular they're targeting riders who request during surge then cancel at the last minute and re-request hoping to catch the driver at a non-surge rate. I had one rider tell me he was put in a 30 minute time out after canceling two surge rides.


He's probably lying. I have had many riders tell me they do that if possible. Not one has ever been timed out. They don't punish pax.


----------



## chi1cabby

UberPissed, Thank you!

1) On 4/21/16, *SLR filed a Declaration* alongside the *Motion for Preliminary Approval*. Could please download the Declaration or Motion for Prelim. Approval by Uber's Defense Counsel/s, if one was indeed filed w/ *Proposed Settlement.*
These are Uber's Defense Counsels from pages 2 & 3:
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.
THEANE EVANGELIS,
DHANANJAY S. MANTHRIPRAGADA,
JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ or
KEVIN J. RING-DOWELL

2) Also, SLR & Uber are asking the Court to Vacate 2 Orders (see e) in the Non-monetary Provisions (Para 135), *Proposed Settlement*. I'd like to see those 2 Orders.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> For me - the change which allows me to execute the right Uber gave me in my driver agreement to choose which rides I will accept without being deactivated is a HUGE deal. It means I can continue driving when, where and who I want, without being deactivated.
> 
> Beyond that, Uber is creating a system of due-process allowing a deactivated driver to plead their case before a panel of drivers - who understand the realities of driving, and who will have the power to reinstate a driver (presumably for 'non-criminal' offenses).
> 
> Those are the two 'biggies' for me - as they allow me to better operate as an IC without being threatened with deactivation or actually deactivated without any means to appeal.
> 
> Just because I don't like how Uber runs their business, doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to run it that way. Uber was not created to serve drivers - and it never will be. It is set-up and operated to serve riders.


But that's because you're not getting timeouts...yet.

Here it's 20 minutes and by then the surge is GONE. I have been in big surges and had pings 18 minutes away at no surge from riders with 4.27 ratings. Didn't accept them and and been timed out. Sat in the surge watching it go down. HOW tgat doesn't violate the spirit of "you can accept whatever you want" is beyond me.

Uber can increase the timeouts to 30 minutes, 60, 3 days. That forces drivers to accept all pings or not drive at all. That is no different from deactivation.

Please stop saying a 10 minute time out wouldn't bother you when you haven't dealt with it yet, and it doesn't have to be 10 minutes, it can be whatever uber wants.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Lack9133 said:


> Every time Uber has to concede even the smallest amount of power to drivers, it is a win for the drivers. Unfortunately, a win for the drivers is a loss for the public. I can already see a small fraction of drivers going overboard with their tipping signage. One of the things passengers love about Uber is the fact that you feel like you're in a personal vehicle and if drivers have the ability to start placing signage in the back seat, that feeling of a personal vehicle will go away.


Who gives a f***? If they'd read the small.print in the first place, not been cheap f***s and tipped this wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## Lack9133

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Who gives a f***? If they'd read the small.print in the first place, not been cheap f***s and tipped this wouldn't even be an issue.


So much anger.... I would have to say the passengers would care when "give me money" signs are shoved in their face.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> But that's because you're not getting timeouts...yet.


I can only comment with first-hand knowledge on how Uber operates here. We DO get timeouts... but they are minimal in time (for most) and used here only to get unresponsive drivers 'off the rider map' - perfectly justifiable. I've never been faced with not being able to log back in immediately... but then , I've also never just never ignored request after request after request. Someone who does that shouldn't be online... hell, they shouldn't be driving Uber - and Uber will see to it that they're not. Someone who wants to cherry-pick to THAT degree should just become a private driver and not muck up Uber or Lyft's system (for both drivers and riders). These companies are NOT in the business of making drivers 'happy' - they are in the business of providing a system that connects drivers and riders reliably. Anyone who wants to subvert that system can complain all they want... they are not 'entitled'. I'm not saying they can't try... but to complain that they get booted because they get caught using the system in a way that makes it less reliable or useful for others is their problem... not mine.


> Please stop saying a 10 minute time out wouldn't bother you when you haven't dealt with it yet, and it doesn't have to be 10 minutes, it can be whatever uber wants.


No. I'll keep saying it... thanks. I don't have to like Uber - or the things it does - to understand what it is they are trying to build.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Lack9133 said:


> So much anger.... I would have to say the passengers would care when "give me money" signs are shoved in their face.


 But that's certainly alot better then deceiving the pax into thinking that the tip is already included when it's not.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I can only comment with first-hand knowledge on how Uber operates here. We DO get timeouts... but they are minimal in time (for most) and used here only to get unresponsive drivers 'off the rider map' - perfectly justifiable. I've never been faced with not being able to log back in immediately... but then , I've also never just never ignored request after request after request. Someone who does that shouldn't be online... hell, they shouldn't be driving Uber - and Uber will see to it that they're not. Someone who wants to cherry-pick to THAT degree should just become a private driver and not muck up Uber or Lyft's system (for both drivers and riders). These companies are NOT in the business of making drivers 'happy' - they are in the business of providing a system that connects drivers and riders reliably. Anyone who wants to subvert that system can complain all they want... they are not 'entitled'. I'm not saying they can't try... but to complain that they get booted because they get caught using the system in a way that makes it less reliable or useful for others is their problem... not mine.No. I'll keep saying it... thanks. I don't have to like Uber - or the things it does - to understand what it is they are trying to build.


Does it ever get old to you to defend Uber in all circumstances and never be able to EVER admit they have ever done anything wrong ?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fuzzyelvis said:


> But that's because you're not getting timeouts...yet.
> 
> Here it's 20 minutes and by then the surge is GONE. I have been in big surges and had pings 18 minutes away at no surge from riders with 4.27 ratings. Didn't accept them and and been timed out. Sat in the surge watching it go down. HOW tgat doesn't violate the spirit of "you can accept whatever you want" is beyond me.
> 
> Uber can increase the timeouts to 30 minutes, 60, 3 days. That forces drivers to accept all pings or not drive at all. That is no different from deactivation.
> 
> Please stop saying a 10 minute time out wouldn't bother you when you haven't dealt with it yet, and it doesn't have to be 10 minutes, it can be whatever uber wants.


Another great point.

And you can't really reason with this Michael-Cleveland-Professional-Uber-Shill guy so don't let him get to you.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> TNC drivers, are not employees in most jurisdictions (as in here in Ohio - by state law) - so 'at-will' policies are not applicable. And the program being tested by Uber is (somewhat remarkably) a hearing before a panel of drivers - not Uber employees. I can't imagine that driver-panel decisions/recommendtions regarding deactivations for 'legal;' or 'safety' issues would be given any weight... but I can imagine Uber otherwise deferring to the conclusions reached by a panel a drivers.


And who chooses the panel? Which Uber CAN ignore COMPLETELY if they so choose. It means nothing.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Greguzzi said:


> Given that the request comes in without a rider name attached, how do you know the 2nd request is the same rider?


If it's the same address, same rating and it's a subdivision, it's the same person.


----------



## chi1cabby

*New Thread:*

*What's wrong with the Proposed #UberLAWSUIT Settlement and what can the Drivers do about it.*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> Does it ever get old to you to defend Uber in all circumstances and never be able to EVER admit they have ever done anything wrong ?


Does it ever get old commenting without knowing what you're talking about? 
(of course it doesn't - because you don't know what you don't know.)
#UberOffTuesdays


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> And who chooses the panel?


hehe... maybe a panel of Uber Riders will choose the panel of Uber drivers?!  Who knows... can we at least see how their test is implemented in Seattle before we shoot it all to hell. I for one am pretty pleased there is now SOME form of due process being tested. As it is now, you can't call Uber on the phone and you can't even send an email to anyone. THAT, imo, should be illegal.


> Which Uber CAN ignore COMPLETELY if they so choose. It means nothing.


We don't know that.
We can probably assume that.
But making assumptions ain't nothing more than guessing which way the wind will blow.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Does it ever get old commenting without knowing what you're talking about?
> (of course it doesn't - because you don't know what you don't know.)
> #UberOffTuesdays


You never answered my question. Just one time I would love for you to say Uber has done something wrong, and not also in the same context say that they are a business so they are entitled to do what they want.

I'll answer your question though. I have never lost an argument to you.

I don't go around following people critical of Uber and tell them they "don't have to drive" and "they aren't doing anything illegal" and "they are a business" so they are allowed to do what they want.

Honestly I can't wait til Uber deactivates you after a pax lies and complains for no reason at all in an attempt to get a fare adjustment and hear you find a way to excuse it simply to them being a business and being allowed to do what they want.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's a settlement between the parties. What is relevant is what they agree to be relevant.
> They are agreeing that drivers, for the purposes of this agreement, are ICs.
> Expenses are being calculated based on the 'ride' miles.
> That's their agreement.
> It sucks... but to agree on compensation for 'dead' miles, Uber would be conceding the point of worker classification - which they will not do until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.


Since uber WAS deactivating drivers for not accepting that would mean you were forced to drive from one dropoff point to the next pin. You couldn't be forced to drive anywhere ekse, but it seems to me they woukd need to pay for miles from when you got your first ping and for mileage from one to the next.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... maybe a panel of Uber Riders will choose the panel of Uber drivers?!  Who knows... can we at least see how their test is implemented in Seattle before we shoot it all to hell. I for one am pretty pleased there is now SOME form of due process being tested. As it is now, you can't call Uber on the phone and you can't even send an email to anyone. THAT, imo, should be illegal.
> We don't know that.
> We can probably assume that.
> But making assumptions ain't nothing more than guessing which way the wind will blow.


Where does the agreement say they have to do anything with this drivers association besides listen? If it's not in the settlement then they won't do it.

Look at how they interpreted "make clear" tips are not included.


----------



## Rat

Bart McCoy said:


> Now I need a lawsuit in my state so I can get some money


Average driver gets $145. So one weeks commission to Uber. SUCKS!!!!


----------



## Rat

uberdriverfornow said:


> What an absolute joke of a settlement. This is the same joke of a settlement the judge already unapproved for Lyft.
> 
> We basically get nothing. $200 on average to each driver ??? What the hell is that ? We still aren't classified as employees so that means that any ongoing costs that Uber should be paying won't be paid to us for reimbursements that we CONTINUE to acrue and Uber still doesn't have to add a tip option.
> 
> What kind of idiot lawyer would allow this to proceed ? I thought that Riordian woman was supposed to be the best in the business. She's a joke! I wonder how much Uber and Lyft is paying to her secret Cayman Island's bank account to try to force these joke of settlements on us ???
> 
> The lawyers get millions and don't even have to force a trial ! Eff that !!


She gets 1/3 of the settlement. You get 1/385,000


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... maybe a panel of Uber Riders will choose the panel of Uber drivers?!  Who knows... can we at least see how their test is implemented in Seattle before we shoot it all to hell. I for one am pretty pleased there is now SOME form of due process being tested. As it is now, you can't call Uber on the phone and you can't even send an email to anyone. THAT, imo, should be illegal.
> We don't know that.
> We can probably assume that.
> But making assumptions ain't nothing more than guessing which way the wind will blow.


Uber chooses the make up of the board and can choose to ignore them at will. So.........


----------



## Rat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Where does the agreement say they have to do anything with this drivers association besides listen? If it's not in the settlement then they won't do it.
> 
> Look at how they interpreted "make clear" tips are not included.


Now they are claiming tipping is racist


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Lack9133 said:


> So much anger.... I would have to say the passengers would care when "give me money" signs are shoved in their face.


Many pax have been all to happy to not bother to look below the surface if their cheap rides. If they're made to feel uncomfortable by a sign telling them something they already knew but decided to mo acknowledge that's too bad. The ones who REALLY didn't know a tip wasn't included and give a sh** will feel guilty and then start tipping.

Travis talks about tipping being uncomfortable--well anyone like him should feel that way with a sign pointing out how cheap they are.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... maybe a panel of Uber Riders will choose the panel of Uber drivers?!  Who knows... can we at least see how their test is implemented in Seattle before we shoot it all to hell. I for one am pretty pleased there is now SOME form of due process being tested. As it is now, you can't call Uber on the phone and you can't even send an email to anyone. THAT, imo, should be illegal.
> We don't know that.
> We can probably assume that.
> But making assumptions ain't nothing more than guessing which way the wind will blow.


But if I'm right it's a bit late by then, isn't it?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Since uber WAS deactivating drivers for not accepting that would mean you were forced to drive from one dropoff point to the next pin. You couldn't be forced to drive anywhere ekse, but it seems to me they woukd need to pay for miles from when you got your first ping and for mileage from one to the next.


Interesting point - and I would LOVE to see that!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> But if I'm right it's a bit late by then, isn't it?


ifs, woulda, couldas - all conjecture. 
None of has a crystal ball - but we do know where this is headed (and that's the elimination of most driver work completely. Of course I want to see drivers get a fair shake... but this is a company that is not set-up to make drivers happy. It's set-up - as we've been told by ops managers here - to find the lowest rate of compensation that will keep drivers on the road and the lowest fares to maximize users of the service. We can vent all we want here - that's not going to change anything. The only thing that matters to Uber is the metrics. If enough drivers stop driving, then they'll do what they have to to get more drivers on the road. We all know this and have been discussing it for a year. If Uber can support its claim of drivers being ICs by letting a panel of drivers judge each other, then they'll do it. If Uber has to loosen its 'acceptance rate' deactivation threat in order to avoid a claim of employer control - they'll do it. Kalanick is determined not to lose that argument. This company does not belong to us drivers - and it never will. Uber will never allow the tail to wag the dog.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> Uber chooses the make up of the board and can choose to ignore them at will. So.........


Let me know when you have some facts to back that up.
I'd LOVE to see the headlines in Seattle about how the driver's panel's recommendations go unheeded by Uber. (seriously - I would)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> You never answered my question. Just one time I would love for you to say Uber has done something wrong, and not also in the same context say that they are a business so they are entitled to do what they want.


First, why would I care what you want?
Second - JUST ONE TIME? Tell you what... you read through my 5,000 posts here and THEN ask me that question.
And then you let me know when you start a movement and recruit others to protest Uber's treatment of drivers.


> I have never lost an argument to you.


lmao - in your mind.
You have no idea what you are talking about or anything about who you are talking to.

------------------------------
ok: here's just one post from me ... that was a reply TO YOU:

_Uber's [despicable] business model is to keep a driver on the road just long enough to keep the Uber service level to riders acceptable with drivers who haven't yet figured out that they are losing money while turning their cars into junk... and to then replace that driver with a new one who will pay higher fees, with a newer car, and then to repeat the process until they can start replacing drivers with autonomous cars.

Want to protest against Uber's business plan?
Then stop driving Uber and stop using Uber for rides.
_​Yup... whoever wrote that (me) must be a real proponent of Uber
------------------------------


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I guess I'm gonna hve to add "you have no idea what you're talking about" to your long list of hilariously funny arguments with no substance or logic in them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> I guess I'm gonna hve to add "you have no idea what you're talking about" to your long list of hilariously funny arguments with no substance or logic in them.


Right - because I've been known here for the last 18 months for making "hilariously funny arguments with no substance or logic in them".


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right - because I've been known here for the last 18 months for making "hilariously funny arguments with no substance or logic in them".


If you weren't constantly adding your "Uber disclaimer" any time in a context you even attempt to criticize them by saying one of the above quotes perhaps you could be considered an unbiased poster. That, combined with your constant criticism of anyone here that criticizes Uber really tells the story. I don't care what you were doing in the 15 months before I started posting here. You don't see me following other people around and criticizing them for being critical of Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> If you weren't constantly adding your "Uber disclaimer" any time in a context you even attempt to criticize them by saying one of the above quotes perhaps you could be considered an unbiased poster. That, combined with your constant criticism of anyone here that criticizes Uber really tells the story. I don't care what you were doing in the 15 months before I started posting here. You don't see me following other people around and criticizing them for being critical of Uber.


Ah... I guess I forgot that I am supposed to post things here that please you. I must have missed that in the terms of use here. You keep making stuff up and expecting me (and anyone else) to believe you. You're a joke... someone who complains about things you've never read... and who complains about things that don't exist. Keeping talking - and showing how foolish you are - but maybe do it in thread that's relevant to the topic you're obsessed with (me).


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Rat said:


> Average driver gets $145.


_*THAT*_ much?



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Ah... I guess I forgot that I am supposed to post things here that please you. I must have missed that in the terms of use here.


You did not miss that in the Terms of Service. You did, however, miss the part where it states that you must post things here that please _*ME*_.

Please re-read the Terms of Service for this site and take measures to assure that your future posts comply with all Terms of Service.

Thank you , and Have a Nice Day.


----------



## Rat

Another Uber Driver said:


> _*THAT*_ much?


$84,000,000 x 2/3 (lawyer gets 1/3)/385,000 drivers= $145.45


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Rat said:


> $84,000,000 x 2/3 (lawyer gets 1/3)/385,000 drivers= $145.45


You forgot to take out for the lawyer's expenses, filing fees, payments to witnesses and the like. All of that comes out of the clients' share. That one-third is pure profit for the lawyer.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> You forgot to take out for the lawyer's expenses, filing fees, payments to witnesses and the like. All of that comes out of the clients' share. That one-third is pure profit for the lawyer.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...s-are-mostly-paid-to-do-nothing/#5c77eb7963c0


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Let me know when you have some facts to back that up.
> I'd LOVE to see the headlines in Seattle about how the driver's panel's recommendations go unheeded by Uber. (seriously - I would)


Why would you think that would matter? Uber doesn't seem to give a sh** about bad publicity, ESPECIALLY as it relates to their whiny drivers (the public's opinion in many cases).


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> First, why would I care what you want?
> Second - JUST ONE TIME? Tell you what... you read through my 5,000 posts here and THEN ask me that question.
> And then you let me know when you start a movement and recruit others to protest Uber's treatment of drivers.
> 
> lmao - in your mind.
> You have no idea what you are talking about or anything about who you are talking to.
> 
> ------------------------------
> ok: here's just one post from me ... that was a reply TO YOU:
> 
> _Uber's [despicable] business model is to keep a driver on the road just long enough to keep the Uber service level to riders acceptable with drivers who haven't yet figured out that they are losing money while turning their cars into junk... and to then replace that driver with a new one who will pay higher fees, with a newer car, and then to repeat the process until they can start replacing drivers with autonomous cars.
> 
> Want to protest against Uber's business plan?
> Then stop driving Uber and stop using Uber for rides.
> _​Yup... whoever wrote that (me) must be a real proponent of Uber
> ------------------------------


I think that folks are calling you a shill, etc. (which I know you're not) because a few of your posts seem to have a "I'm doing ok, so these issues don't matter to me" tone. I definitely got that from our timeout discussion. We are being really hurt here by the timeouts but I felt that you just didn't see it as a big issue because it's not happening to you. Maybe that's completely wrong, but that's how it came across to me. I doubt I'm the only one.

I know you're not a fan of Uber, but repeating what we all know--that they don't care about the drivers, and then making it sound as if you think that's ok (you don't HAVE to be an asshole to run a successful business) is what is rubbing some folks the wrong way I THINK. I could be wrong.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...s-are-mostly-paid-to-do-nothing/#5c77eb7963c0


Thank you for the link. _*Gotta' love*_ the first two sentences.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Why would you think that would matter? Uber doesn't seem to give a sh** about bad publicity, ESPECIALLY as it relates to their whiny drivers (the public's opinion in many cases).


huh? I didn't say it would matter. I just want to see the headline... you know, for my Uber scrapbook.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> Thank you for the link. _*Gotta' love*_ the first two sentences.


yeah... I posted that for you.
(I hold an opposing opinion to that of the author)
but I knew you'd like it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Ah... I guess I forgot that I am supposed to post things here that please you. I must have missed that in the terms of use here. You keep making stuff up and expecting me (and anyone else) to believe you. You're a joke... someone who complains about things you've never read... and who complains about things that don't exist. Keeping talking - and showing how foolish you are - but maybe do it in thread that's relevant to the topic you're obsessed with (me).


No idea what you're saying here. I can't even tell if I'm being criticized because nothing you said here makes any sense.

As long as you keep criticizing people for being critical of Uber and using your ridiculous arguments I'm going to keep calling you out. I don't really care how much you cry.

You try to act like your shit don't stink but it does. That high and mighty crap isn't going unchecked.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> No idea what you're saying here. I can't even tell if I'm being criticized because nothing you said here makes any sense.


Your inability to comprehend something in plain English isn't my problem but it is an indication of your inability to understand something in plain English.


> As long as you keep criticizing people for being critical of Uber and using your ridiculous arguments I'm going to keep calling you out.


Please do. That's what the forum is for. Make a reasonable, reasoned and intelligent argument - and you might even change my mind. Based on your posts and lack of comprehension I don't expect that to happen anytime soon... but I'm open. In fact, I suspect that's what bothers you; people who refuse to see things in black & white terms. I know I'm doing something right when a jerk like you calls me an Uber apologist at the same time someone in another thread is accusing me of Uber bashing.


> I don't really care how much you cry.


 Sometimes I envy people who live in their own fantasy world of ego and self-congratulation - they must be very happy.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I know I'm doing something right when you call me an Uber apologist at the same time someone in another thread is accusing me of Uber bashing.


When I was a Company Official, one of my frequent remarks was "I know that I am doing my job properly: _*everyone*_ is pee-yo-ed at me".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> When I was a Company Official, one of my frequent remarks was "I know that I am doing my job properly: _*everyone*_ is pee-yo-ed at me".


truth


----------



## chi1cabby

*

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728731259791413249**







*


----------



## SD_Expedition

chi1cabby said:


> *
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728731259791413249
> View attachment 39028
> *


Interesting! I'd like to read the rest of this.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

do you get the impression (as I do) that judge Chen is nearing exasperation with Uber and its attorneys?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Just based on that alone I would say this judge is not looking favorably on the worst settlement agreement in US history.

There are about a million things wrong with this settlement. I can't really fathom and freethinking judge going for it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> do you get the impression (as I do) that judge Chen is nearing exasperation with Uber and its attorneys?


More than one politician or regulator became exasperated with Uber Officials or lawyers while same was rendering testimony or answering questions. Suddenly, the "exasperation" was nowhere to be found.

I wonder if someone has found himself unable to "arrange" for the disappearance of this "exasperation".


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I can only comment with first-hand knowledge on how Uber operates here. We DO get timeouts... but they are minimal in time (for most) and used here only to get unresponsive drivers 'off the rider map' - perfectly justifiable. I've never been faced with not being able to log back in immediately... but then , I've also never just never ignored request after request after request. Someone who does that shouldn't be online... hell, they shouldn't be driving Uber - and Uber will see to it that they're not. Someone who wants to cherry-pick to THAT degree should just become a private driver and not muck up Uber or Lyft's system (for both drivers and riders). These companies are NOT in the business of making drivers 'happy' - they are in the business of providing a system that connects drivers and riders reliably. Anyone who wants to subvert that system can complain all they want... they are not 'entitled'. I'm not saying they can't try... but to complain that they get booted because they get caught using the system in a way that makes it less reliable or useful for others is their problem... not mine.No. I'll keep saying it... thanks. I don't have to like Uber - or the things it does - to understand what it is they are trying to build.


You keep making excuses for Uber's silly and punitive timeouts.

Timeouts are not used to disconnect riders who forgot to turn off their app. They are used to punish drivers for not accepting pings. If their goal was to disconnect riders who left on their app, they could just disconnect them. Instead, they disconnect them and do not let them back on for 5 minutes in some markets to up to 30 minutes in others. We are independent contractors with every right to refuse requests.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> You keep making excuses for Uber's silly and punitive timeouts.
> 
> Timeouts are not used to disconnect riders who forgot to turn off their app. They are used to punish drivers for not accepting pings. If their goal was to disconnect riders who left on their app, they could just disconnect them. Instead, they disconnect them and do not let them back on for 5 minutes in some markets to up to 30 minutes in others. We are independent contractors with every right to refuse requests.


Don't start again... just because you don't agree with someone...
There's a big difference between making an excuse for something and explaining it. Get off your high horse... would you let YOUR drivers show their availability to your riders but not accept trip requests? OF COURSE the timeouts are designed to get people offline who are showing they are available when they're not. I know that common sense is not beyond you!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Don't start again... just because you don't agree with someone...
> There's a big difference between making an excuse for something and explaining it. Get off your high horse... would you let YOUR drivers show their availability to your riders but not accept trip requests? OF COURSE the timeouts are designed to get people offline who are showing they are available when they're not. I know that common sense is not beyond you!


We are not "their drivers". We are "independent contractors". As such, we should be allowed to choose what trips we want to make and not get dinged because of that. If they want us to accept all pings then they need to call us employees. It's that simple.

The problem is that you AND Uber both want to call us one thing and treat us like another.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> We are not "their drivers". We are "independent contractors". As such, we should be allowed to choose what trips we want to make and not get dinged because of that. If they want us to accept all pings then they need to call us employees. It's that simple.
> 
> The problem is that you AND Uber both want to call us one thing and treat us like another.


Really, so you think an independent contractor should be able to do whatever they want but the company should be able to do what they want? So you hired an independent contractor to build a house for you it's okay if he doesn't show up for 2 weeks or shows up but doesn't do any work?


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Don't start again... just because you don't agree with someone...
> There's a big difference between making an excuse for something and explaining it. Get off your high horse... would you let YOUR drivers show their availability to your riders but not accept trip requests? OF COURSE the timeouts are designed to get people offline who are showing they are available when they're not. I know that common sense is not beyond you!


LOL. Everything they say about you is true.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Really, so you think an independent contractor should be able to do whatever they want but the company should be able to do what they want? So you hired an independent contractor to build a house for you it's okay if he doesn't show up for 2 weeks or shows up but doesn't do any work?


Try hiring a c0ntractor by saying, "I don't know how long the job will take or how much it will pay you, and you have 15 seconds to decide. Go!"

Lemme know what their response is, bro.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Really, so you think an independent contractor should be able to do whatever they want but the company should be able to do what they want?


Uber advertises that we get to pick "when we want to work" on "our time". They don't advertise that we will be forced to take each and every single ride they try to throw our way. You know what kind of group does that ? An employer. An employee of a pizza delivery company doesn't get to pick which deliveries they do and the reason is that they are employees. The employer gets to exert that control because they are an employee.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> So you hired an independent contractor to build a house for you it's okay if he doesn't show up for 2 weeks or shows up but doesn't do any work?


Uber is a self described "software" company. They aren't even a "transportation" company. They don't even have a right to be a "transportation" company since they aren't in the business of providing transportion as they have alluded to many many times before in an attempt to not have to be on the hook for being an employer.



> Uber maintains that it is merely a software company that facilitates deals between customers and drivers. Uber maintains it is not a transportation company


What's stopping Uber from requiring their "independent" contractors from doing a pickup 100 miles away? We are, that's what's stopping them. It's our right to decide what distance is too far to allow them to control us and make us take unprofitable rides.

I know you think Uber should be allowed to do anything it wants and we shouldn't be allowed to do anything but this is the real world.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Uber says; all your time and decisions R belong to us. But you R independent contractor.


----------



## SD_Expedition

As an Independent Contractor, sometimes I would sit there, eating a candy bar. Application on, 

*ping* nah, I don't like your name 
*declined*. 

*ping* to far away, low rating *declined*. 

Oh, 10 minute break penalty! (Wait!!! I'm an employee now!?) 

*Back online*

*ping* bad timing, cleaning my earwax, scratching my butt *declined*

*ping* location is close, cool name, nice rating *accepted* (independent contractor)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SD_Expedition said:


> As an Independent Contractor, sometimes I would sit there, eating a candy bar. Application on,
> *ping* nah, I don't like your name
> *declined*.
> *ping* to far away, low rating *declined*.


That's where we all make the mistake of talking as if being an independent contractor means that we get to decide how the TNCs run THEIR business. We don't. We only get to decide to how to and when to operate what WE do as drivers. If you are sitting there eating a candy bar, APP ON, you are telling the company (and more importantly, riders) that you ARE available to accept a ride request. If you're not available (because you can't be bothered while eating your candy bar) then you should let them know you're not available at that time (by logging off) ... it's common courtesy - adult behavior.

But if you want to cherry pick your rids (as I do!), then know that if your cherry picking effects my ability as a business to provide the service for which I have engaged you, then I'm going to take you out of the loop of 'available' for service... and if you continue to make my business look bad, I'm not going to engage you as an independent contractor anymore.

Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are set-up to serve us, the drivers, is quite simply wrong.
Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are going to do anything more than the minimum they have to to keep drivers on their system and available to accept ride requests is, quite simply, living in a fantasy world.
And anyone who thinks that being an independent contractor engaged to fulfill service/job requests I provide is going to be able to continue receiving job requests from me when they decline more than they accept, is going to find him/herself fewer or no no more job requests from me.

Yeah - some of this is devil's advocacy... but it's also the practical reality.
I have around 200 independent contractors in four states signed up with my company to do job fulfillments. If any of my service providers is constantly turning down the job orders I send to them, I don't give them a 'time-out' - I just stop sending them job requests.
If I didn't, I wouldn't have any customers.

And finally, in my opinion, anyone who doesn't understand this, and who thinks that the tail wags the dog, is a typical entitled millennial who believes the world revolves around them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> Try hiring a c0ntractor [sic] by saying, "I don't know how long the job will take or how much it will pay you, and you have 15 seconds to decide. Go!".


Disingenuous answer, bro.
We know EXACTLY how much every job(ride) request will pay us. ($x per min, $x per mile).
*What we DON'T know *- and I think we have a right to know -* is how much any job will COST us.*
(which is why I have always advocated for a filter that would allow us to receive ONLY ride requests with a radius we get to set from within the driver app)


----------



## JMBF831

Can one of you kind people link me to the form I need to fill out so I can get my $200? Thanks in advance, everyone!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JMBF831 said:


> Can one of you kind people link me to the form I need to fill out so I can get my $200? Thanks in advance, everyone!


I would think that no 'form' will be available unless or until the court approves a settlement agreement. There's a hearing set with the court for June.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Disingenuous answer, bro.
> We know EXACTLY how much every job(ride) request will pay us. ($x per min, $x per mile).
> *What we DON'T know *- and I think we have a right to know -* is how much any job will COST us.*
> (which is why I have always advocated for a filter that would allow us to receive ONLY ride requests with a radius we get to set from within the driver app)


LOL. No. All we know is how far away the pickup is. After that, we do not know how long the job will be, either in minutes or in miles, so we have no idea how much we will be paid. And we are given 15 seconds to say yes or no. Try again. Harder this time, bro. Costs are a function of miles, in general. I see no utility in your filter.


----------



## Greguzzi

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber advertises that we get to pick "when we want to work" on "our time". They don't advertise that we will be forced to take each and every single ride they try to throw our way. You know what kind of group does that ? An employer. An employee of a pizza delivery company doesn't get to pick which deliveries they do and the reason is that they are employees. The employer gets to exert that control because they are an employee.
> 
> Uber is a self described "software" company. They aren't even a "transportation" company. They don't even have a right to be a "transportation" company since they aren't in the business of providing transportion as they have alluded to many many times before in an attempt to not have to be on the hook for being an employer.
> 
> What's stopping Uber from requiring their "independent" contractors from doing a pickup 100 miles away? We are, that's what's stopping them. It's our right to decide what distance is too far to allow them to control us and make us take unprofitable rides.
> 
> I know you think Uber should be allowed to do anything it wants and we shouldn't be allowed to do anything but this is the real world.


Checkmate.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's where we all make the mistake of talking as if being an independent contractor means that we get to decide how the TNCs run THEIR business. We don't. We only get to decide to how to and when to operate what WE do as drivers. If you are sitting there eating a candy bar, APP ON, you are telling the company (and more importantly, riders) that you ARE available to accept a ride request. If you're not available (because you can't be bothered while eating your candy bar) then you should let them know you're not available at that time (by logging off) ... it's common courtesy - adult behavior.
> 
> But if you want to cherry pick your rids (as I do!), then know that if your cherry picking effects my ability as a business to provide the service for which I have engaged you, then I'm going to take you out of the loop of 'available' for service... and if you continue to make my business look bad, I'm not going to engage you as an independent contractor anymore.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are set-up to serve us, the drivers, is quite simply wrong.
> Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are going to do any thing more than the minimum they have to to keep drivers on their system and available to accept ride requests is, quite simply, living in a fantasy world.
> And anyone who thinks that being an independent contractor engaged to fulfill service/job requests I provide is going to be able to continue receiving job requests from me when they decline more than they accept, is going to find him/herself fewer or no no more job requests from me.
> 
> Yeah- some of this is devil's advocacy... but it's also the practical reality.
> I have around 200 independent contractors in four states signed up with my company to do job fulfillments. If any of my service providers is constantly turning down the job orders I send to them, I don't give them a 'time-out' - I just do stop sending them job requests.
> If I didn't, I wouldn't have any customers.
> 
> And finally, in my opinion, anyone who doesn't understand this, and who thinks that the tail wags the dog, is a typical entitled millennial who believes the world revolves them.


Do you tell your contractors, "I refuse to tell you the time or distance parameters you are committing to, so I cannot tell you how much the job will pay, but I will be a nice guy and give you 15 seconds to accept or decline my generous offer. What is your answer?"

If you don't conduct your bidding process in this way, you are not operating like Uber is, so you may be entitled to cutting off independent contractors because the situations are entirely different.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. No. All we know is how far away the pickup is.


 APPROXIMATELY how far away the pick-up is - and where.


> After that, we do not know how long the job will be, either in minutes or in miles, so we have no idea how much we will be paid.


 You can see it that way - or the right way  - we know EXACTLY what we will earn, per min and per mile - just like a taxi driver. And just like a taxi driver, we don't know how long the paid drive will be or the total we will earn for that drive. But we do know exactly what we will get paid for the miles we drive on a trip. If that's not the kind of work we want to do, or the kind of jobs we want, then we shouldn't be doing this. Your proposition seems to be that the TNCs should not be what they are: on-demand car transportation - but rather, prescheduled livery services. It's pretty hard to understand why anyone would think they are making a point that 'TNC driving is not the same as livery driving... I think we can all agree they are not the same. What's also hard to understand is why 'we' as drivers think that we can or should be able to tell the TNCs what their business and service should be.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> Do you tell your contractors, "I refuse to tell you the time or distance parameters you are committing to, so I cannot tell you how much the job will pay, but I will be a nice guy and give you 15 seconds to accept or decline my generous offer. What is your answer?"


Sort of... I take job requests from my clients and pass that along to the closest contractors - who then decide if it is worth their time to drive to the job site and do the work... I do give them an estimate of the start and end time - but they know it can be shorter or longer. Unlike the TNCs, I don't send the job request to one contractor at a time - I send it to a half dozen - and the first to respond accepting it, gets the job. At the end of the job they report their actual hours to me, and I get them paid.


> If you don't conduct your bidding process in this way, you are not operating like Uber is, so you may be entitled to cutting off independent contractors because the situations are entirely different.


I never said I was operating "like Uber" - hell, I wouldn't have any contractors working for me if I did that! I said that my contractors know that if they don't want to work within the system my business has in place, they are not required to - and are free to look elsewhere for work. (other differences between how I operate and how Uber does: $15/hr pay with a 4 hour min, guaranteed.)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> We are not "their drivers". We are "independent contractors".


You can see yourself any way you want... that has nothing to do with your actual or legal relationship with a TNC.
I, for one, AM one of "_their drivers_". It's not all I am - but I do drive/provide driver-car services through the TNC systems - as an independent contractor, just as my workers (most of whom are independent contractors) are indeed "my workers" (and I have the general liability insurance premium bills to prove it, ugh.)

And maybe you missed it but recently a federal court refused Uber's request to dismiss a claim against Uber for vicarious liability resulting from the sexual assault perpetrated on a rider by an Uber driver... in other words, according to the court, the driver IS one of 'Uber's drivers'.


----------



## gman

Well you guys can argue this until the cows come home and both sides have good points to make. However these timeouts are silly in the sense that Uber is effectively taking revenue making cars out of circulation and actually worsening the experience for riders in most cases. 

For me, most of the ones I ignore are ones that are behind me or in some fashion are going to be difficult for me to get there for one reason or another. So another driver, while technically farther away could actually get there quicker. So during my timeout, someone could request a ride a couple of blocks from me but oh well, daddy uber put me out of circulation and in the corner for four minutes or whatever. So good luck with the next closer car.

In addition to Uber and my regular job I also rent cars on Turo and have a room for rent on Airbnb. On either one, I can refuse all the requests I want all month long and neither one is going to disable my listings for not having a high enough acceptance rate. That's because I am a true independent contractor in those cases. I set my own rates and manage my listings how I see fit.

I guess Uber is just in the business of creating adversarial relationships with it's drivers (time outs), and customers (surge). 

Each one of the bozo's that works at Uber corporate should be required to go out and drive for eight hours at least once a month. I saw a feature on DoorDash and that is their policy, from the CEO on down. Until then they just don't know the reality of it. Or more than likely they do and just don't care.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Good points, all... but:


gman said:


> In addition to Uber and my regular job I also rent cars on Turo and have a room for rent on Airbnb. On either one, I can refuse all the requests I want all month long and neither one is going to disable my listings for not having a high enough acceptance rate. That's because I am a true independent contractor in those cases.


The TNCs aren't in the business of 'plan-ahead/order-ahead... they are in the '_on-demand_' business. There IS a difference.

If AirBNB or Turo were in the business of delivering a room or car within 5 minutes and you were declining a high number of requests, I doubt you'd be able to remain on their platforms.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's where we all make the mistake of talking as if being an independent contractor means that we get to decide how the TNCs run THEIR business. We don't. We only get to decide to how to and when to operate what WE do as drivers. If you are sitting there eating a candy bar, APP ON, you are telling the company (and more importantly, riders) that you ARE available to accept a ride request. If you're not available (because you can't be bothered while eating your candy bar) then you should let them know you're not available at that time (by logging off) ... it's common courtesy - adult behavior.
> 
> But if you want to cherry pick your rids (as I do!), then know that if your cherry picking effects my ability as a business to provide the service for which I have engaged you, then I'm going to take you out of the loop of 'available' for service... and if you continue to make my business look bad, I'm not going to engage you as an independent contractor anymore.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are set-up to serve us, the drivers, is quite simply wrong.
> Anyone who thinks that the TNCs are going to do anything more than the minimum they have to to keep drivers on their system and available to accept ride requests is, quite simply, living in a fantasy world.
> And anyone who thinks that being an independent contractor engaged to fulfill service/job requests I provide is going to be able to continue receiving job requests from me when they decline more than they accept, is going to find him/herself fewer or no no more job requests from me.
> 
> Yeah - some of this is devil's advocacy... but it's also the practical reality.
> I have around 200 independent contractors in four states signed up with my company to do job fulfillments. If any of my service providers is constantly turning down the job orders I send to them, I don't give them a 'time-out' - I just stop sending them job requests.
> If I didn't, I wouldn't have any customers.
> 
> And finally, in my opinion, anyone who doesn't understand this, and who thinks that the tail wags the dog, is a typical entitled millennial who believes the world revolves around them.


 Do your contractors know where they'll be when they finish the job? 50 miles away? It's just not a good comparison. Telling them you'll pay them for instance $20 per hour but not telling them how long you want them to do it for (could be 1 hour, could be 5) , and where they'll end up after doing it would probably not go over well with them.

As you say, it's mostly about cost. And we need a filter. But we don't have one.

Also, if your contractors kept telling you you weren't paying enough, and most of the jobs were not worth their time, and you had to keep finding new contractors, who a month later told you the same thing--and meanwhile your customers were being impacted by lousy service--wouldn't you think maybe you should rethink the way you were doing business?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Do your contractors know where they'll be when they finish the job? 50 miles away? It's just not a good comparison. Telling them you'll pay them for instance $20 per hour but not telling them how long you want them to do it for (could be 1 hour, could be 5) , and where they'll end up after doing it would probably not go over well with them.


 Please - this isn't about my workers and I never said I ran a business the same way Uber does... but my workers can either accept job orders - or not. If they don't, I won't send them more job requests. I don't have to 'fire them' or give them a 'time-out'. I just stop sending them requests because they are not reliable and they waste my time. They know only approximately how far they must travel (at their expense) to a job site - and approximately how long the job will take. Could end earlier - could end later. I guarantee them 4 hours of paid time (and charge the clients a min 4 hour fee).


> As you say, it's mostly about cost. And we need a filter. But we don't have one.


 THAT is what what I have said many times - including in this thread. Greguzzi seemed to think the idea of a radius filter is not a good one. I think it is the only way that we can gain control over what jobs we are willing to accept - and to filter out the ones we won't even consider (ie: more than 10 minutes away). I think a filter would serve everyone better: drivers, riders and the TNCs.


> Also, if your contractors kept telling you you weren't paying enough, and most of the jobs were not worth their time, and you had to keep finding new contractors, who a month later told you the same thing--and meanwhile your customers were being impacted by lousy service--wouldn't you think maybe you should rethink the way you were doing business?


Yeah - of course I would - OR, like Uber, I might first just try to find workers who want to do the work for the compensation I am offering. As I said - this isn't about my business - it's about UBER (and Lyft) and right now there are more drivers willing to start and/or keep driving than there are drivers who refuse to work at these absurdly low rates.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Please - this isn't about my workers and I never said I ran a business the same way Uber does... but my workers can either accept job orders - or not. If they don't, I won't send them more job requests. I don't have to 'fire them' or give them a 'time-out'. I just stop sending them requests because they are not reliable and they waste my time. They know only approximately how far they must travel (at their expense) to a job site - and approximately how long the job will take. Could end earlier - could end later. I guarantee them 4 hours of paid time (and charge the clients a min 4 hour fee). THAT is what what I have said many times - including in this thread. Greguzzi seemed to think the idea of a radius filter is not a good one. I think it is the only way that we can gain control over what jobs we are willing to accept - and to filter out the ones we won't even consider (ie: more than 10 minutes away). I think a filter would serve everyone better: drivers, riders and the TNCs.Yeah - of course I would - OR, like Uber, I might first just try to find workers who want to do the work for the compensation I am offering. As I said - this isn't about my business - it's about UBER (and Lyft) and right now there are more drivers willing to start and/or keep driving than there are drivers who refuse to work at these absurdly low rates.


I only brought up YOUR business because you did. But the point is you are making it worthwhile (apparently) because your minimum job is worth doing and the contractors know where they will be working.

There is simply no way to know if a job is worth taking with uber most of the time.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I only brought up YOUR business because you did...


I only talked my about relationship with my ICs - noting that if they do not accept a reasonable number of gigs (in MY opinion) then I stop sending them job requests. That was the relevant point - and what everyone seems to be taking issue with.


> ... the point is you are making it worthwhile (apparently) because your minimum job is worth doing and the contractors know where they will be working.


They only know approx where in the city they will be working... but that's not the point: they know what they signed up for - and they can chose to be part of the work team for that city or not. The choice to participate is theirs. The choice to to engage them (or continuing to engage them by sending gigs their way) is mine alone - not theirs. I don't think that's different from any gig business.


> There is simply no way to know if a job is worth taking with uber most of the time.


 True enough... and I STILL ignore most requests from more than 10 minutes (3-5 miles) away. So far I haven't been 'timed-out' - but others here have. I do tend to look at my total day of driving and earnings rather than every individual ride. I know I am going to be driving all over the city - and just like 2A last night, I could end up driving someone 25 miles to a pax's home and end up 40 miles away from my own home... essentially making around $25 for 1 1/2 hours of driving. But also like last night, that trip can turn out to be on a 1.5x surge - paying $35 - and the pax gives me a $38 tip (I think he just reached in his pocket and handed me all of his cash). You don't know. There IS uncertainty. All I can do is decide after each day/week/month if it is worth the uncertainty to keep doing this. But I am not in the dark about the investment or risk I am making in driving - or the reality of the return I can expect on that investment.


----------



## Dts08

I just want to know when they are going to start cutting the checks


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Sort of... I take job requests from my clients and pass that along to the closest contractors - who then decide if it is worth their time to drive to the job site and do the work... I do give them an estimate of the start and end time - but they know it can be shorter or longer. Unlike the TNCs, I don't send the job request to one contractor at a time - I send it to a half dozen - and the first to respond accepting it, gets the job. At the end of the job they report their actual hours to me, and I get them paid.I never said I was operating "like Uber" - hell, I wouldn't have any contractors working for me if I did that! I said that my contractors know that if they don't want to work within the system my business has in place, they are not required to - and are free to look elsewhere for work. (other differences between how I operate and how Uber does: $15/hr pay with a 4 hour min, guaranteed.)


Deflect and deny and defend Uber. Same old same old.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> APPROXIMATELY how far away the pick-up is - and where. You can see it that way - or the right way  - we know EXACTLY what we will earn, per min and per mile - just like a taxi driver. And just like a taxi driver, we don't know how long the paid drive will be or the total we will earn for that drive. But we do know exactly what we will get paid for the miles we drive on a trip. If that's not the kind of work we want to do, or the kind of jobs we want, then we shouldn't be doing this. Your proposition seems to be that the TNCs should not be what they are: on-demand car transportation - but rather, prescheduled livery services. It's pretty hard to understand why anyone would think they are making a point that 'TNC driving is not the same as livery driving... I think we can all agree they are not the same. What's also hard to understand is why 'we' as drivers think that we can or should be able to tell the TNCs what their business and service should be.


Deflect and deny and defend Uber. You live up to your reputation!


----------



## JMBF831

So, just to clarify, where do I "sign-up" to get my money? I'm in California and I thought there was a form I could fill out to be on the the "list" of peeps who get a small chunk of money? Thanks in advance, everyone.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

JMBF831 said:


> So, just to clarify, where do I "sign-up" ? Thanks in advance, everyone.


Yes, I want to know to whom I should send my name and address so that I can get my Buy One Two Topping Little Caesar's Pizza and Get the Second One Free voucher..........not that I particullarly, like Little Caesar's, mind you, but if that is what they are giving out, I want my "buy one get one free" coupon.


----------



## JMBF831

Another Uber Driver said:


> Yes, I want to know to whom I should send my name and address so that I can get my Buy One Two Topping Little Caesar's Pizza and Get the Second One Free voucher..........not that I particullarly, like Little Caesar's, mind you, but if that is what they are giving out, I want my "buy one get one free" coupon.


Haha

Someone told me it was estimated to be worth around $220?

I think I saw estimates such as:

$40MM Payout
385,000 drivers (maybe 185,000 sign up, maybe even less realistically)
=$216.21


----------



## Another Uber Driver

JMBF831 said:


> I think I saw estimates


I have seen a few different figures here and there. The settlement amount was what, one hundred million?

The lawyer gets one third, which leaves 667.000,00, give or take a few bucks.

Expenses, witness fees take another third, which leaves, say 334.000,00. The lead plaintiffs get the lion's share of that. The class members get a voucher for buy one six inch Subway get one twelve inch free. I have seen too many class action suits play out in a similar manner.


----------



## JMBF831

Well, damn! I'll take a Cold Cut Trio, sir! lol


----------



## SD_Expedition

I pay Uber to provide me with leads to service clients, it's my choice which ones I service. In return I pay them for facilitating the lead and for processing the fare. If they decide to penalize me for not accepting a lead they provide, I am therefore required and obligated by Uber to accept a contract, against my will. Under the threat of a time penalty. Thus I am an Employee.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can see yourself any way you want... that has nothing to do with your actual or legal relationship with a TNC.


Based on who, your opinion ? I continue to give you specific reasons why we are employees. You continue to ignore my points and instead ALWAYS counter with "you agreed to be an independent contractor because Uber tells you you are and that's what you signed up for". What kind of argument is that ? Based on your failure to rebut my argument you are basically conceding I am correct.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I, for one, AM one of "_their drivers_". It's not all I am - but I do drive/provide driver-car services through the TNC systems - as an independent contractor, just as my workers (most of whom are independent contractors) are indeed "my workers" (and I have the general liability insurance premium bills to prove it, ugh.)


The whole purpose of this thread is to argue whether we are employees. The entire purpose of the lawsuit against Uber is to argue whether we are employees. However you basically ignore all evidence of us being employees.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> And maybe you missed it but recently a federal court refused Uber's request to dismiss a claim against Uber for vicarious liability resulting from the sexual assault perpetrated on a rider by an Uber driver... in other words, according to the court, the driver IS one of 'Uber's drivers'.


Just because the judge refused to dismiss them as a defendant doesn't mean that we are their drivers, it means that there is enough evidence to proceed. However, even if he agreed that we are Uber's drivers, that would seem to substantiate our claim that we are employees not drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Sort of... I take job requests from my clients and pass that along to the closest contractors - who then decide if it is worth their time to drive to the job site and do the work... I do give them an estimate of the start and end time - but they know it can be shorter or longer.


Are you saying you actually run a side business in charge of other drivers ? If so, this would explain why you're always taking Uber's side.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

So I have a question about the queue if you are in a cell


Greguzzi said:


> Deflect and deny and defend Uber. You live up to your reputation!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lol! My reputation is one of the highest on the board, thanks. But you go ahead and keep ignoring facts, logic and reason. Because that certainly underscores your reputation.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Lol! My reputation is one of the highest on the board, thanks. But you go ahead and keep ignoring facts, logic and reason. Because that certainly underscores your reputation.


LOL. You have an excellent reputation for being an Uberschill, and you just keep reinforcing your reputation with every post.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> So I have a question about the queue if you are in a cell


That is the most sense I have ever heard you make, but I just can't quite understand what you mean. Care to translate Michael-ese to Ingrish?


----------



## Greguzzi

SD_Expedition said:


> I pay Uber to provide me with leads to service clients, it's my choice which ones I service. In return I pay them for facilitating the lead and for processing the fare. If they decide to penalize me for not accepting a lead they provide, I am therefore required and obligated by Uber to accept a contract, against my will. Under the threat of a time penalty. Thus I am an Employee.


Exacta-effing-mente.


----------



## gman

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Good points, all... but: The TNCs aren't in the business of 'plan-ahead/order-ahead... they are in the '_on-demand_' business. There IS a difference.
> 
> If AirBNB or Turo were in the business of delivering a room or car within 5 minutes and you were declining a high number of requests, I doubt you'd be able to remain on their platforms.


Fair point but I still doubt I would be kicked off the system or given some silly timeout. Because they are probably smart enough to know the true definition of an independent contractor, and also smart enough to realize that just because I'm passing on some requests that doesn't mean I'm going to pass on all of them. And by removing me from the platform it will be one less room/car available for customers.

Also, on both of these platforms I can set parameters on who I want to do business with, such as min/max number of days, number of people, kids, pets, smoking, etc. So when I get a request there is a strong likelihood I will want to accept it. Not so with Uber of course. Heaven forbid I could actually set the direction I want to travel or pickup radius or maximum trip length.

Back in the day (I've been doing this for 2 1/2 hears now), when a ping came in you could see the whole map, not just a few block radius of the requester. That alone would make a big difference in making a snap decision on whether to accept or not. Now it kind of forces you to accept just to get oriented, especially if you're not in your home area. Also back in the day, if you let only one ping go by it would log you off, which I thought was smart because what if you forgot to go offline or whatever. But you could always log right back on no problem.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. You have an excellent reputation for being an Uberschill, and you just keep reinforcing your reputation with every post.


You can tell when someone has nothing to add to a discussion when all they can do is make ludicrous statements and personal attacks. Says a lot about the author. Whatever. I look forward to reading something from you that's relevant and worthwhile - but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

gman said:


> Also, on both of these platforms I can set parameters on who I want to do business with, such as min/max number of days, number of people, kids, pets, smoking, etc.


 Sure - but the businesses are not comparable and not competitors to each other. On-demand is an entirely different animal.


> Back in the day (I've been doing this for 2 1/2 hears now), when a ping came in you could see the whole map, not just a few block radius of the requester.


 I agree - and it's also a real problem (for me) that I often do not receive a full address (with city name) so I have no idea even what direction the pick-up is in. I imagine that will get better over time as the technology improves, but it's a real problem right now. I usually will not do a 'drive-to-pin' request unless I can recognize the location immediately.


> Also back in the day, if you let only one ping go by it would log you off, which I thought was smart because what if you forgot to go offline or whatever.


 Exactly.


> But you could always log right back on no problem.


Yeah - and I understand what they are doing now - with the timeouts - trying to minimize people from cherry-picking. I know that I ignore and cancel the same # of rides as other drivers here - but only some are seeing (very short) time-outs, while others, like me, have never seen one. One thing I do is, immediately after ignoring a request, I log-off for a few seconds and then log-back on... just to let the system know that I am paying attention and am intentionally ignoring the request. I have no idea if that helps or not. <shrug>

One improvement they made to the app (at least on Android (6) is that it used to be that if the app was not in the foreground, it would log me off after 3 mins without notice... and now I get a pop-up asking if I want to stay online. THAT's a good thing.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> Based on who, your opinion ?


No - of course not. Based on the agreement that you signed with Uber.


> I continue to give you specific reasons why we are employees. You continue to ignore my points and instead ALWAYS counter with "you agreed to be an independent contractor because Uber tells you you are and that's what you signed up for". What kind of argument is that ? Based on your failure to rebut my argument you are basically conceding I am correct.


You really have never read any of my posts, have you. I agree the courts SHOULD, due to the way Uber and Lyft control drivers activities, find that, (based on the DoL and IRS standards) drivers are misclassified as ICs and are in fact employees. How could you possibly miss that if you read my posts... unless you're just bent on ignoring whatever I write in favor of attacking me personally.


> The whole purpose of this thread is to argue whether we are employees.


ha! Says who? - you?


> The entire purpose of the lawsuit against Uber is to argue whether we are employees. However you basically ignore all evidence of us being employees.


Wrong and wrong. The purpose of the lawsuit was an attempt to force Uber to STOP TREATING DRIVERS LIKE EMPLOYEES without the benefits provided to employees. Do you really not understand the difference? The overwhelming # of drivers (including me) want to remain ICs - but if Uber is going to exert the control of an employer over us, than we should be entitled to the protections provided for in the IRS and DoL regulations which enforce the FLSA (overtime, min wage, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance)


> Just because the judge refused to dismiss them as a defendant doesn't mean that we are their drivers, it means that there is enough evidence to proceed. However, even if he


 The judge is a 'she'


> agreed that we are Uber's drivers, that would seem to substantiate our claim that we are employees not drivers.


Oh stop it... you're arguing the semantics of whether we are an Uber driver if we drive Uber? Who cares. I drive Uber rides - I'm one of Uber's drivers. I don't care what you call yourself - and I doubt anyone else does either. One thing's for sure, when you pick up an Uber pax, THEY think you're one of Uber's drivers (and they have the power to see to it that you are no longer one of "Uber's drivers").


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can tell when someone has nothing to add to a discussion when all they can do is make ludicrous statements and personal attacks. Says a lot about the author. Whatever. I look forward to reading something from you that's relevant and worthwhile - but I won't hold my breath.


Dude, that's your MO. That and hiding (and hiding behind) your moderator status.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

The way the employment law reads at least here in TX is that you are, or are not, an employee based on various tests. You cannot give up your employment status by agreeing to, in a contract or any other way. What you or the employer WANT you to be does not matter.

Otherwise Mcdonalds could tell its employees if they wanted to work there it would be as contractors.

The contract agreeing to be a contractor, if we are (by the tests) employees, is simply void.

The tests don't really make it clear with TNC, which is why there's debate. But what we agree to or want to be is not relevant.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Greguzzi said:


> Dude, that's your MO. That and hiding (and hiding behind) your moderator status.


ha - again - You keep talking about me (as if anyone cares) and you have nothing to offer here about the issues. I'm flattered - haven't had anyone this obsessed with me since 7th grade. It's a shame you can't legitimately refute anything I say about this business.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The way the employment law reads at least here in TX is that you are, or are not, an employee based on various tests. You cannot give up your employment status by agreeing to, in a contract or any other way. What you or the employer WANT you to be does not matter.


 Exactly... that's FEDERAL law.


> The contract agreeing to be a contractor, if we are (by the tests) employees, is simply void.


Not exactly...
And this is what the lawsuits are all about. A business is charged with using the 'IC/Employee' tests to determine the classification of a worker. The classification they determine is presumed to be correct, unless challenged (by any party or government authority). As the IRS guidelines state, no single element of the test is a determining factor. And the IRS will not 'rule' on the issue before hand. If a company files an SS-8 with IRS requesting an opinion on the correct classification for a job, the IRS will respond with just that: an opinion. It is not binding. I have submitted the multiple SS-8s over the years for the same job description and the replies have been split 50/50! The only entity that has authority to definitively rule on classification is the courts.


> The tests don't really make it clear with TNC, which is why there's debate. But what we agree to or want to be is not relevant.


EXACTLY!! Also, employees cannot 'waive' their rights and protections under the FLSA.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Uber is a good idea gone bad. Face it. They are trying so hard to redefine so many laws they've lost sight of just facilitating the rides with drivers, and the payment processing aspect of it.

The only thing that I would defend Uber on is, how drivers manipulate the system to their advantage. It's probably likely why we have this mess now. Those who had to be greedy and try to get over on Uber, thus creating more problems related to facilitating it all.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SD_Expedition said:


> Uber is a good idea gone bad. Face it. They are trying g so hard to redefine so many laws they've lost sight of just facilitating rider with drivers, and the payment processing.


 A good idea GOING bad. yup.


> drivers manipulate the system to their advantage. It's probably likely why we have this mess now. Those who had to be greedy and try to get over on Uber, thus creating more problems related to facilitating it all.


Exactly - it's amazing how much time and money they spend trying to put out the fires they created - when they could have avoided all of them to begin with. I don't know the man - but I have to suspect that all comes down the sociapathic CEO.


----------



## arto71

chi1cabby said:


> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ns-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html?referer=
> 
> *APRIL 21, 2016*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - Uber has long been embroiled in a debate over the status of its drivers: Should they be independent contractors or full-time employees?
> 
> Uber says that as independent contractors, its drivers get flexibility. Their freelancer status also lets the company sidestep the costs of full-time employees, including paying minimum wage and the employers' share of Social Security. But labor groups and lawyers have argued that Uber drivers should be classified as employees to receive worker protections.
> 
> On Thursday, Uber moved a step closer to getting its way. The company reached a settlement in a pair of class-action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that will let it continue to categorize drivers in those states as independent contractors - a landmark agreement that could have lasting implications on the long-term viability of the ride-hailing service.
> 
> Under the settlement, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Uber will pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers represented in the cases. The company also agreed to several concessions to appease driver concerns, including giving more information on how and why drivers are banned from using the app, as well as aiding in creating new "drivers associations" in both states.
> 
> The settlement is a significant victory for Uber on the matter of its drivers' status. By keeping its drivers as contractors, the San Francisco-based company can keep its costs low. And while the settlement applies only to two states and is nonbinding elsewhere, the agreement and the changes that Uber is adopting may influence regulators in other places where the issue has surfaced.
> 
> "Drivers value their independence - the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," Travis Kalanick, chief executive of Uber, said in a company blog post announcing the settlement.
> 
> "That said, as Uber has grown - over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S. - we haven't always done a good job working with drivers," he wrote. "It's time to change."
> 
> The agreement, which is subject to approval by Judge Edward M. Chen, who is presiding over the cases, says Uber must pay $84 million to the plaintiffs represented in the case. Uber will dispense an additional $16 million if the company holds an initial public offering and the average valuation of Uber increases to one and a half times that of its last financing round. In December 2015, Uber was valued at $62.5 billion, making it the most valuable private technology company in the world.
> 
> The class-action suits that are being settled were originally filed in 2013 and became the biggest suits in terms of the number of drivers represented. Uber still faces litigation about driver status in other states, including similarlawsuits in Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Last June, the California Labor Commissioner's Office said Barbara Ann Berwick, a former driver for Uber, should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. That case, which does not apply to drivers other than Ms. Berwick, is being appealed by Uber.
> 
> The settlement's changes are aimed at reducing points of contention for drivers. In the past, Uber has been able to boot drivers from its platform with little explanation, something that Uber said it would no longer be able to do. The company published a lengthy document detailing all the reasons a driver may be deactivated, from unsafe driving and carrying a firearm - which is prohibited - to using drugs and alcohol.
> 
> Uber said it would also provide drivers with more information about their ratings system - a measurement based upon individual scores from passengers - and how ratings were calculated. The company is exploring creating an appeals process for Uber drivers who have been deactivated because of a low rating.
> 
> Uber also agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline to accept requests for rides from passengers, a practice that previously would contribute negatively to a driver's overall standing with the company. Instead, drivers may be temporarily logged out of the app and unable to accept new requests if they are "consistently not accepting trip requests."
> 
> "We know that sometimes things come up that prevent you from accepting every trip request, but not accepting dispatches causes delays and degrades the reliability of the system," the company said in its newly published driver deactivation policy.
> 
> Uber refers to a trip declined by a driver as a cancellation. Each city will have a maximum cancellation rate based on the average cancellation rate of the drivers in the area, the company said. It could eventually deactivate those who persistently exceed the rate.
> 
> Uber said many of the changes were a part of its overall maturation process, as it has grown from a small start-up to a global organization in roughly six years.
> 
> Yet many of the policy changes Uber announced as part of its settlement - particularly changes to its protocol on deactivating drivers over their cancellation and acceptance rates - appear designed to defuse the plaintiffs' arguments that Uber drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, as the company maintains.
> 
> Given that the proposed settlement would allow the company to continue pushing drivers to accept most rides, pick up most passengers and maintain their cars in certain ways - alevel of control that is often associated with employees rather than contractors - many critics of the company's labor model may not be appeased.
> 
> Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco and Noam Scheiber from Washington.


*Los Angeles Drivers File Objection To Uber Settlement*
https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineod...ber-settlement?utm_term=.fpDxrY0rp#.fxvA68J6D


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SD_Expedition said:


> Uber is a good idea gone bad. Face it. They are trying g so hard to redefine so many laws they've lost sight of just facilitating rider with drivers, and the payment processing.
> 
> The only thing that I would defend Uber on is, how drivers manipulate the system to their advantage. It's probably likely why we have this mess now. Those who had to be greedy and try to get over on Uber, thus creating more problems related to facilitating it all.


Greedy? I've tried doing what Uber wants--accepting and completing every ride they send me. That nets me less than minimum wage. Maybe in some markets that's not the case, but for me here, it is.

I don't think trying to make at least minimum wage is "greedy". The only ones who are greedy are those in charge of Uber.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Greedy? I've tried doing what Uber wants--accepting and completing every ride they send me. That nets me less than minimum wage. Maybe in some markets that's not the case, but for me here, it is.
> 
> I don't think trying to make at least minimum wage is "greedy". The only ones who are greedy are those in charge of Uber.


You are missing my point. Let me clarify for you. Originally when Uber had started and things were developing, drivers and riders were happy with where the rates were. At that time, drivers who manipulated the system back then, set in motion a lot of what we are seeing now. I'm speaking of the evolution of what has happened IMO.

It's one thing to cherry pick, which I personally believe for an independent contractor, is fine to do. There should be no issue with it.

But manipulation the system in anyway, surges etc., I believe is what has and is causing things to go awr even further (though today, I understand why it's happening, rates suck). On a driver level.

Again, IMO.

I understand where you are at and coming from today. I as well am not in a good place due to hoping Uber would work out for me. Screw me once, screw me twice....


----------



## SD_Expedition

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A good idea GOING bad. yup.Exactly - it's amazing how much time and money they spend trying to put out the fires they created - when they could have avoided all of them to begin with. I don't know the man - but I have to suspect that all comes down the sociapathic CEO.


Agree with the above.

You do make some valid points. I still think there is some discrepancies with Federal laws regarding classification. Hopefully we will see some positive changes and curtailing of the Uber system of down.

It's self destructing. Sociopathic makes sense.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SD_Expedition said:


> You are missing my point. Let me clarify for you. Originally when Uber had started and things were developing, drivers and riders were happy with where the rates were. At that time, drivers who manipulated the system back then, set in motion a lot of what we are seeing now. I'm speaking of the evolution of what has happened IMO.
> 
> It's one thing to cherry pick, which I personally believe for an independent contractor, is fine to do. There should be no issue with it.
> 
> But manipulation the system in anyway, surges etc., I believe is what has and is causing things to go awr even further (though today, I understand why it's happening, rates suck). On a driver level.
> 
> Again, IMO.
> 
> I understand where you are at and coming from today. I as well am not in a good place due to hoping Uber would work out for me. Screw me once, screw me twice....


 Uber created the surge system. And pax "manipulate" by not accepting trips at surge. If the price is not high enough and I want to wait to see if it surges, that's not manipulation. If they don't order while it surging, then too bad for me.

All I'm doing is refusing to work at the regular rate. The pax is refusing to pay at above the regular rate. I don't see that as manipulaton, I see that as the market at work....which is EXACTLY what Uber harps on about.

Double the price and most surging would go away overnight.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Uber created the surge system. And pax "manipulate" by not accepting trips at surge. If the price is not high enough and I want to wait to see if it surges, that's not manipulation. If they don't order while it surging, then too bad for me.
> 
> All I'm doing is refusing to work at the regular rate. The pax is refusing to pay at above the regular rate. I don't see that as manipulaton, I see that as the market at work....which is EXACTLY what Uber harps on about.
> Double the price and most surging would go away overnight.


Couldn't agree more. And that's also what SD_Expedition is saying: 
Uber caused all of this by setting up the system so that it is in both pax and drivers best interest to'play ('_manipulate_' - whatever) the system.


----------



## SD_Expedition

Fuzzy, same team, I agree!

Micheal, we see it through a similiar optic. I may dissagree on the classification issue with you, but we do agree that it's become an uncontrollable beast. The more they (Uber) try to perfect their system, the worse it becomes.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I've been thinking more about this and combined with reports saying that a worse case scenario was a reduction of the class size to around 8000 drivers, it's highly likely Shannon was worried that if the class size got reduced to that amount the amount of damages would only be in the $50 million or so amount and that would be less than what they are proposing now.

Or you could look at it like this, we are being offered about $150 or so per driver, times 8000 drivers and that's only $1.2 million dollars.

All this ***** wants is a nice payout even though her fiduciary duty is to the plaintiff.

We all know this case was a slam dunk.

Here's another win for drivers in another misclassification lawsuit.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business...hp?t=bf8b5c8cfe00af33be&cmpid=twitter-premium

My question is why isn't the california labor board and the EDD taking action on behalf of us ?

They did it for these guys.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

She said the uncertainty was the lawsuit itself but the ONLY uncertainty was how much she was going to get paid. Any idiot can try this case and win.

It wasn't until the appeals court decided to hear the issue of how big the class size was, that she decided to settle because she wants to ensure a big payout.

I can't recall her losing any hearing whatsoever based on the merits of the lawsuit itself.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

It's nice to see that they've left Shannon out of this one. She'd probably settle with uber like 1/10th of what the drivers have coming to them.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Both Judges defer decisions

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YO1A5


----------



## Bob Reynolds

Sacto Burbs said:


> Both Judges defer decisions
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YO1A5


That is a signal for all of the parties to get together and try to work things out.

If that does not happen then the judges will not approve these settlements and these cases will go to trial.


----------



## Rat

Bob Reynolds said:


> That is a signal for all of the parties to get together and try to work things out.
> 
> If that does not happen then the judges will not approve these settlements and these cases will go to trial.


I hope you are correct. We need clarity


----------



## SD_Expedition

Big update, Liss Riordan will accept less in fees and payout.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...-lawyer-rep-ing-uber-drivers-slashes-her-fees


----------



## uberdriverfornow

She sounds like she doesn't even care. What kind of lawyer just up and decides she's going to lose the case ? Of course she wants to lower her fee. She knows there's no chance in hell this settlement gets approved AND she is afraid they are going to drop her off this case. Who cares, it's possible she got a nice little backroom deal outside of court, just based on how absolutely atrocious this settlement was. Even the judge said she left 99.9% out of the settlement. That says it all.

If she doesn't think she can win then let the judge throw the case to Geragos. No way in hell My Cousin Vinny could lose this lawsuit, it's a slam dunk for anyone else, and with Geragos I'm confident we will win easily.


----------



## underpaiduber

The lawyers knew before they took this case that UBER would not have to classify drivers as employees. They also knew despite this that they would walk away with a lot of money! I have seen this many times before. So what happens to the drivers that collected unemployment after the court rules they are independent contractors. This is why lawyers are looked at as scum.


----------



## Argantes

No new updates about the case? court dates and such? I want my damn money!


----------



## ginseng41

I just got an email from the lawyers

Dear Uber driver (outside California and Massachusetts):

I'm writing to update you on our claims against Uber. The settlement of our case brought on behalf of drivers in California and Massachusetts is still pending with the court, and we are waiting for the judge's decision on whether to approve the settlement.

As we explained before, we were hoping to be able to expand our case nationwide, but that is now not looking likely. If the settlement is approved, the case will be over; if the settlement is not approved, there will be many issues to continue to litigate, and it may be years before we would ever get the chance to appeal the court's decision to exclude drivers outside California.

So I wanted to let you know now that we do not expect to be able to pursue claims for drivers outside California and Massachusetts. However, other law firms have filed cases on behalf of Uber drivers in different states around the country. So if you remain interested in pursuing a claim against Uber for misclassification, I would recommend that you contact a local lawyer, or the law firm listed below that has brought cases against Uber in many states around the country:

Salvatore C. Badala

NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC

360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor

New York, NY 10017

Tel. (212) 397-1000

[email protected]

If our California and Massachusetts settlement is approved, Uber has informed us that it intends to implement the non-monetary portions of the settlement on a nationwide basis, so you may receive those benefits if you are still driving for Uber. However, as explained above, we are unlikely to be able to pursue monetary claims for you. I am sorry we are not going to be able to assist you with that.

Sincerely,

Shannon Liss-Riordan

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000

Boston, MA 02116

[email protected]


----------



## Argantes

Well that answers my question Ginseng, I hope they get you guys your money as well, that is "If" they even manage to get it to the cali/mass drivers.


----------



## ginseng41

It's almost undoubtedly going to go to trial. The initial offer was ludicrous and the judge knew that. I can't imagine uber is going to counteroffer to something he'll find appropriate, especially since the offer basically ignored the employee claim of the drivers


----------



## DriverX

I think a good compromise would be to implement finger printing of drivers and forcing Uber to have a hands-off policy on drivers operations. so no more deactivations for cancels or ratings. Deactivations should only occur if uber can prove fraud or illegal activity or unsafe driving with actual written complaints from pax. 

I want to stay IC for sure, and I want all my rights as an IC upheld. Uber can't be allowed to have its cake and eat it too. The cab companies should be suing the regulatory agencies for giving Uber an unfair advantage by allowing them to use ICs and treat them like employees.


----------



## Argantes

Nm, got it.


----------



## ginseng41

Yeah I'll quit if they try to make me an employee. I'm certain they will require people to work certain hours and there will be a maximum per week to avoid overtime. They could have totally avoided all of this mess if they had left rates at a reasonable level and added a tipping option way back when. I predict that Uber will crumble entirely within a few years


----------



## DriverX

Yeah but Herbalife is a well known pyramid scheme that has been in operation since 1980. 

Apparently if you can keep settling lawsuits the profits outweigh the losses. IDK where its going, I suspect uber will grind along until Google decides to take over the industry with true driverless cars. Uber will be bought for pennies on the dollar and the investors who bought the IPO will lose everything.


----------



## Slavic Riga

ginseng41 said:


> I just got an email from the lawyers
> 
> Dear Uber driver (outside California and Massachusetts):
> If our California and Massachusetts settlement is approved, Uber has informed us that it intends to implement the non-monetary portions of the settlement on a nationwide basis, so you may receive those benefits if you are still driving for Uber. However, as explained above, we are unlikely to be able to pursue monetary claims for you. I am sorry we are not going to be able to assist you with that.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Shannon Liss-Riordan
> Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
> 
> 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
> 
> Boston, MA 02116
> 
> [email protected]


LIsa & her firm does not mention, once they accept the settlement/payout they will no more be eligible to litigate or represent drivers in future law suits as, she & her office will be facing a law suit *in "Conflict of Interest". *

Below is the reason & not all the reasons given in their letters.
15 or 20 percent (I'm not sure, please correct) of the drivers settlement amount will be held by Lisa-Shannon Plc. in Uber stock & can only be redeemed once Uber goes public. Say whatever you want guys 'In trust', 'in bonds', 'in stocks'. 
Which individual/law firm will fight a company once they have money invested in a company & that too none of it came from their pockets or accounts.
*
May be she too was offered a position on the Board of Uber to be a Director.*


----------



## Slavic Riga

DriverX said:


> Yeah but Herbalife is a well known pyramid scheme that has been in operation since 1980.
> 
> Apparently if you can keep settling lawsuits the profits outweigh the losses. IDK where its going, I suspect uber will grind along until Google decides to take over the industry with true driverless cars. Uber will be bought for pennies on the dollar and the investors who bought the IPO will lose everything.


Do not forget 'BANKRUPTCY'. Travis K filed it twice.


----------



## Flarpy

The non-monetary concessions are meaningless because Uber will simply work around them.

Can't deactivate drivers for low acceptance rates? Fine, we'll simply time them out for a week.

Can't tell drivers not to accept tips? Fine, we'll just tell riders not to give tips.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Flarpy said:


> The non-monetary concessions are meaningless because Uber will simply work around them.
> 
> Can't deactivate drivers for low acceptance rates? Fine, we'll simply time them out for a week.
> 
> Can't tell drivers not to accept tips? Fine, we'll just tell riders not to give tips.


Actually Uber will just opt out of ALL non monetary concessions after two years as provided for in the settlement.


----------



## Flarpy

uberdriverfornow said:


> Actually Uber will just opt out of ALL non monetary concessions after two years as provided for in the settlement.


They'll opt out the next day by going around them.


----------



## ginseng41

Can't they do this now since the judge through the agreement out?


----------



## Slavic Riga

ginseng41 said:


> Can't they do this now since the judge through the agreement out?


Its still being done by Uber, Its known as app malfunction.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

The settlement hasnt been approved(and we all hope it doesnt) so they can still do anything they want.


----------



## ginseng41

Slavic Riga said:


> Its still being done by Uber, Its known as app malfunction.


Well that explainshe my issue


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Another Uber Driver said:


> For California drivers: A voucher for buy one roast beef sandwich at Carl's Jr. and get another sandwich free plus a large Coke and a free fries.
> 
> For Massachusetts drivers: A voucher for buy one large pepperoni pizza at Papa Gino's and get a small plain free.


A few times a year I get a notice from some law firm saying that I qualify as part of a group that has been certified as a class in a class action suit. I suspect most consumers get these on a regular basis, too. I usually ignore them (as most people do). A couple of years ago I remember replying to a notice about a suit against CRUCIAL - the company that sells computer memory. I think I qualified because I purchased a memory card during the period the suit covered... I probably spent $50 on a dimm card or something.

Here it is Aug 2016 and out of the blue I received a check from the settlement of that case: *$132.91 -* considerably larger than the checks I usually get for $0.77!

hehe... I guess not many people from those who qualified to be part of the class bothered to opt-in to the suit.


----------

