# For those Drivers who believe the Strike is Stupid



## Altima ATL (Jul 13, 2015)

Think to yourself - what is your bottom line? What is the least amount per mile or hourly rate you would do this for?

If it came down to it - would you really quit?

Whatever your bottom line is - there are a bunch of drivers with a bottom line 30% below yours and will continue working despite your protests.

And if the strike is a total failure (I do not believe it will be - it will at least open a dialog between partners and Uber) the action group will no longer be here. 

It will be you who will be the action group on the next strike, because Uber will keep putting drivers down and reducing their earnings.

Think when your commission to Uber goes to 25% - you are willing to pay that - or will you just quit.

My advice - quit now - for it surely will happen.


----------



## Jim C (Nov 1, 2015)

Uber drivers should form a union


----------



## FlDriver (Oct 16, 2015)

The first reason a strike is stupid is that 95% of the drivers don't know it's happening. The vast majority of drivers aren't on forums like this, so how would they know they were supposed to be striking?

Strikes typically work when the entire work force is involved, like when a factory full of autoworkers goes on strike, shutting down the factory. Those factory workers have regular work shifts, so it's pretty obvious when they don't show up. When Uber drivers don't go online, how is Uber supposed to know they are striking rather than just taking the day off? I haven't been online today- am I on strike?

Strikes typically are called by a union and involve employees of a company, not independent contractors.

Many drivers who are aware of a strike will figure all this out and realize that if they don't go online on a certain day, they're just cutting their Uber pay to zero that day. 

I've heard several times about supposed strikes of fast food workers, yet when I went out, the restaurants were open, no one was picketing, etc. The only way I knew there was supposedly a strike was that it was mentioned on the news. Not every effective when the restaurant is running as usual.


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

FlDriver said:


> The first reason a strike is stupid is that 95% of the drivers don't know it's happening. The vast majority of drivers aren't on forums like this, so how would they know they were supposed to be striking?
> 
> Strikes typically work when the entire work force is involved, like when a factory full of autoworkers goes on strike, shutting down the factory. Those factory workers have regular work shifts, so it's pretty obvious when they don't show up. When Uber drivers don't go online, how is Uber supposed to know they are striking rather than just taking the day off? I haven't been online today- am I on strike?
> 
> ...


This

And yes I quit Uber. If you want to raise the rates forcefully. Stop driving. The laws of supply and demand will correct the rates.

So long as dummie drivers still hit the road at $.70 per mile Uber will continue to take advantage.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

If a Lyft pax asks me if I also drive for uber, I tell them - No, because Uber charges you and also charges us up to 50% on small rides.
Many times I hear something like "Ph yeah, I have heard this" . Or they are just shocked that uber charges it's drivers 50%.
I don't care how you call it SRF or whatever - if after $4.75 I get to get to keep only just over two dollars , it's not right. 
My protest started 10 month ago and I am still on strike. Now Lyft starting to behave bad too, time to move to Amazon.


----------



## Uberduberdoo (Oct 22, 2015)

7Miles said:


> If a Lyft pax asks me if I also drive for uber, I tell them - No, because Uber charges you and also charges us up to 50% on small rides.
> Many times I hear something like "Ph yeah, I have heard this" . Or they are just shocked that uber charges it's drivers 50%.
> I don't care how you call it SRF or whatever - if after $4.75 I get to get to keep only just over two dollars , it's not right.
> My protest started 10 month ago and I am still on strike. Now Lyft starting to behave bad too, time to move to Amazon.


please tell me about amazon.. thanks


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

ubreduberdoo said:


> please tell me about amazon.. thanks


A new thing. You can sign up but it's only available in one or two cities so far. Here :
https://uberpeople.net/threads/amazon-prime-flex-delivery.37893/


----------



## Muki (Oct 15, 2015)

Simon said:


> This
> 
> And yes I quit Uber. If you want to raise the rates forcefully. Stop driving. The laws of supply and demand will correct the rates.
> 
> So long as dummie drivers still hit the road at $.70 per mile Uber will continue to take advantage.


The problem is, the free market with Uber is not efficient. Normally, if people are grossly underpaid, they will not apply for a job. If McDonalds took out an ad offering $3/hr, nobody would take it. They'd raise the rate to market to attract people. But with Uber, the lack of understanding for many newbies between pay check and profit means the free labor market doesn't work very efficiently. These dummies driving for 70 cents a mile see paycheck and don't keep track of car expenses. Whereas if Uber straight up told them in plain language that their job is less than minimum wage, they would do something else and Uber's rates would have to float up to a reasonable market rate. Its' so frustrating.


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

Least amount I will drive for is

12 cents per mile
1 cent per minute 
25 cent base fare

Any less than that and I will go back to selling Avon


----------



## yair1956 (Nov 25, 2015)

almost 3 month 4,000 miles 49C/ Mile after fuel , before all other expenses and amortization, all data has been meticulously collected and analyzed

adding lyft, hopefully things will get better, if no, we will start to flip hamburgers ...lol


----------



## Atlwarrior (Nov 2, 2014)

Wrong since Uber introduced other brands like select, Suv, Uber X is not the darling child it once use to be.


----------



## sammsmd (Aug 10, 2015)

Yup there is always someone willing to turn on their app in the midst of a protest to rake in the extra fares while they can. This is a simple truth. The amount of onstrike drivers needed is a huge number.

Heres two things that we need to keep in mind. Uber allows drivers who are currently on a fare to accept new rides before their current trip is over, and second whose to say if you get the 50% of drivers to strike, thats a miracle already but lets say you get all the drivers to strike.

All uber has to do with the thousands of pending applications with people who are just itching to get that youve been activated email.

Is activate them and the strike will mean nothing.

Just my personal thoughts on the situation.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Altima ATL said:


> Think to yourself - what is your bottom line? What is the least amount per mile or hourly rate you would do this for?
> 
> If it came down to it - would you really quit?
> 
> ...


While I agree with you on a sentiments level, you're barking up the wrong tree

I'm a strong union supporter, and I believe in the concept of strikes, and the operative word is "legal".

But, without a union, I believe what you are doing, i.e., colluding with other drivers to disrupt a legal business ( honorable intentions would be irrelevant in the law, I believe ) 
is illegal, and so it's not going to help you. Although unions do exactly the same thing,
it is done with the approval of Uncle Sam.

But, "IANAL" , ( I could be wrong, I just don't know ) so caveat, and good luck, but I want no part of it.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Muki said:


> The problem is, the free market with Uber is not efficient.


Free market does not equal a free for all.

Pricing, despite what they TNC companies would like you to think is not being set in simple relation to supply and demand. Initially, in new markets, rates are set even with the most affordable taxi companies, regardless of demand. Then, for a finite time, prices are allowed to surge from those moderate rates to three, four, five times the standard rate. Those prices are set with respect to the fact that the driver is in effect the customer, the rates paid by the pax are intended to attract countless drivers. Then, upon maturation (countless drivers) prices drop into the basement.

I suggest that the situation is better described as a free for all than a free market (which is beyond cliche and exists only on paper) because of the fact that the price setter is completely divorced of the fixed costs with respect to the ownership and maintenance of the cars themselves.

The result is that Uber is able to provide a fleet of cars with no with costs. It allows them to supply a fleet of cars it doesn't need to be able to pay for. It allows them to set incredibly low prices in order to avoid disruption, surge as needed to keep the drivers hooked.

That has more to do with behaving like a robber baron than some sort of free market expression. That needs to be thought through.

Drivers must realize when they propose a walk out: Uber does not own the cars, by refusing to drive, it is their own cars sitting idle. Uber is already content to take 25% of a $5 ride most of the time, and 25% of the same ride that they may charge $30 for from time to time. It is all about avoiding disruption, everything they do. It will be your cars sitting idle.

Drivers would be well served to get active, organize, make things happen, but more thought is needed. Rather than threaten to walk off (most active drivers don't drive as it is) either fight for your rights as independent contractors or for your right as the employees some people feel you really are.

If drivers really are independent contractors, surely, you provide the cars. Uber avoids all talk concerning your costs to operate your vehicles. Drivers are investors ta' boot. You should be able to set your prices within a reasonable range for starters.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...ractors-by-states-tnc-laws.48609/#post-648280


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Huberis said:


> Free market does not equal a free for all.
> 
> Pricing, despite what they TNC companies would like you to think is not being set in simple relation to supply and demand. Initially, in new markets, rates are set even with the most affordable taxi companies, regardless of demand. Then, for a finite time, prices are allowed to surge from those moderate rates to three, four, five times the standard rate. Those prices are set with respect to the fact that the driver is in effect the customer, the rates paid by the pax are intended to attract countless drivers. Then, upon maturation (countless drivers) prices drop into the basement.
> 
> ...


History is replete with examples of "free markets" not serving the public well.

I remember in the 80s, when, in L.A. Governor Ronald Reagan deregulated the airline industry, and what happened?

The days when you can walk in and get a decent rate for a flight that day, or a few days later, were over.

What happened was that, now, in order to get a decent rate, you had to book weeks in advance, so bye bye spontaneous travel
for the average Joe or JoAnne.

Also what happened is that many small airlines were put out of business, because the big ones would engage in rate starvation,
lowering rates so low that the little ones couldn't survive during the period. True, passengers benefitted in the short term by those
low rates, but when the airline killed the little ones, they raised their rates even higher and passengers were left with fewer choices.

In my view, in industries that are critical, like railroads, airlines, etc., regulation is in the public's best interest.

But, in industries that are not critical, such as wedding photography, the government has no business meddling with (though I would
favore legislation to curb MOBzillas ---- "MOB = mother of the bride"  see, I was a wedding photographer for 15 years before Uber ).


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> History is replete with examples of "free markets" not serving the public well.


The prices wind up being set below cost. TNC companies are able to do that, because they don't account for the costs, they don't pay for them. Rates are eventually set in order to avoid disruption from future startups. There is a law scholar at PSU here who routinely cites them as examples of modern day antitrust behavior.

It is reasonable to suggest such things are happening, they happen above and beyond some sort of notion of free market. Strictly speaking, I do not believe we have a truly free market. It is an idea, something with its cheerleaders, but for the most part, it doesn't work out to be a truly free market. There are price gouging laws for example, consumer protections etc.

Much of the gripes expressed by Uber drivers today or the consequences most taxi drivers have said couldn't be avoided, due to a lack of an even playing field. Without question, having Uber as the price setter while the drivers remain responsible for the car is not an example of either an even playing field or a free market. If it was a free market, drivers would set their prices, their would be some natural limit to the number of drivers. Currently, it is a captive market.

All of this talk of "free market". This has as much to do with concerns over deregulation and the nature of venture capitalism. Uber manages to avoid being labeled a common carrier, that contributes to many issues.

I'm not sure the concept of what a free market is or how it operates, do we have one....... The concept is a cliche and doesn't contribute much.

The trend to horribly low rates might speak of the effects of lack of regulation. The price setter has washed his hands of owning and maintaining the cars. Rather than regarding it as an expression of a free market, I would suggest drivers are members of a captive market if such a term exists. There are n alternatives which allow for the car owner to set his price based on costs, Sidecar is dead. Antitrust behavior killed it.

I am not pleased with how I wrote this, but I will leave it as it is. Take care.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

All well said. The best solution for drivers and passengers is to go out and create other, competing, systems. Or, short of that, join other systems. That's what I'm doing. There's plenty out there. In time (and with grassroots driver efforts to work and promote these alternatives), the small competitors will gain traction and market share.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> All well said. The best solution for drivers and passengers is to go out and create other, competing, systems. Or, short of that, join other systems. That's what I'm doing. There's plenty out there. In time (and with grassroots driver efforts to work and promote these alternatives), the small competitors will gain traction and market share.


There you go.


----------



## Muki (Oct 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> All well said. The best solution for drivers and passengers is to go out and create other, competing, systems. Or, short of that, join other systems. That's what I'm doing. There's plenty out there. In time (and with grassroots driver efforts to work and promote these alternatives), the small competitors will gain traction and market share.


Easier said than done when you don't have billions in venture capital. Or the social/financial connections to even get said startup capital to compete with a company like Uber.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Muki said:


> Easier said than done when you don't have billions in venture capital. Or the social/financial connections to even get said startup capital to compete with a company like Uber.


Drivers could and should try to form an association of TNC drivers. The association could create standards by which members (drivers) would be held. The association could help educate drivers, promote driver's status as independent contractors. There will be people out there willing to work with drivers who hold themselves to a standard.

To actually start such a company does not need to be as costly as Uber and Lyft have proven. Both companies have raced ahead of regulation and communities in order to impose their sense of order. They are designed to take advantage of disruption. There are all sort of costs they do incur of their own making and choice. They don't own the cars or fix them, but boy do they spend money.

Uber and Lyft's costs have a lot to do with the philosophy of venture capitalism. There will be a second generation and it will not cost them nearly as much to get started. Uber and Lyft know this and it is why they set the rates so exceptionally low. It is also why they are developing (one reason anyway) driver-less cars. They are investing in the technology to avoid future disruption, future startups would in theory need to match their efforts.

What Uber and Lyft does not account for is the ability of drivers to get organized and associate. All drivers need to do is get together and educate themselves, create a standard which includes insurance and working with legislatures on their behalf.

People will come around offering alternatives. Some of the casual component of the industry might wind up tempered, but that may simply be unavoidable once rates charged to pax become set in relation to driver's costs.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

I always love these threads. They are pretty entertaining in part because they lack pretty much any semblance of common sense.

They are always a perfect example of why anything the drivers do, never works.

Look...a strike? Really? Ok, someone brought up the auto industry. They go on strike, GM notices. So why doesn't Uber? It's simple....there is a difference. The UAW is already talking with GM. They are already negotiating. They have a system for their negotiations to start, take place, reps bring back info for the union to vote on. Uber?

Uber isn't even talking to the drivers. And why should they? There is no negotiation. There is no group to bring back information to vote on. Simply put, there is no need to negotiate anything.

Now the more important point....why should we be talking to them to begin with? Uber isn't the people drivers should be talking with. What's the point? In those talks they hold all the cards. There was some incredibly stupid video from SoCal on this site quite a while back. Some Union was trying to scam drivers into joining a group that they would represent. Of course the drivers would need to pay dues....to a group who admitted they had no authority to really do anything on their behalf. Oh...and that union also represents the taxi drivers if I remember right. what a non starter that was.

So...who should we talk to? They city managers. The Mayor. The people who set regulations for this industry. You want a minimum per mile and minute rate? Those are the guys who set it. Want help? Get the taxi people in on it. It benefits them too.

BTW.....Uber and Lyft drivers were happy to hamstring taxi drivers when the rates were to their liking but killing taxi drivers bank accounts. Kinda sucks that now that we are on the cross and no one cares.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Huberis said:


> Drivers could and should try to form an association of TNC drivers. The association could create standards by which members (drivers) would be held. The association could help educate drivers, promote driver's status as independent contractors. There will be people out there willing to work with drivers who hold themselves to a standard.
> 
> To actually start such a company does not need to be as costly as Uber and Lyft have proven. Both companies have raced ahead of regulation and communities in order to impose their sense of order. They are designed to take advantage of disruption. There are all sort of costs they do incur of their own making and choice. They don't own the cars or fix them, but boy do they spend money.
> 
> ...


I'm helping beta test a new app in my market. It's chances are limited of course, but they have a good idea. Their system addresses many of the shortcomings of UBER and will appeal to UBER BLACK and SUV customers. These people are committed to spending some serious money on marketing. Developing the app and creating the driver pool will cost probably $1M, then marketing for customers will cost several more millions. I'd guess they'll spend $3-5M getting the thing launched. But it's a reasonable gamble (assuming you have $5M of play money)


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> I'm helping beta test a new app in my market. It's chances are limited of course, but they have a good idea. Their system addresses many of the shortcomings of UBER and will appeal to UBER BLACK and SUV customers. These people are committed to spending some serious money on marketing. Developing the app and creating the driver pool will cost probably $1M, then marketing for customers will cost several more millions. I'd guess they'll spend $3-5M getting the thing launched. But it's a reasonable gamble (assuming you have $5M of play money)


I would think that gambling $5 million to go compete in the world of venture capital is chump change. The difficulty to get such a technology together which would work effectively is much lower than it was a few years ago. There is a new lexicon of words now in place to describe what they do.

That is why the prices are so low in mature markets. The barrier isn't so much in developing the technology and most states have still failed to implement real regulation through legislation.

Enjoy your project.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Obviously it's a small effort. But they're not trying to compete in the "cheap rides" arena. UBER is rapidly losing control of its "quality" image. And that makes for opportunities.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> Obviously it's a small effort. But they're not trying to compete in the "cheap rides" arena. UBER is rapidly losing control of its "quality" image. And that makes for opportunities.


At the very least it implies a self limiting enterprise. It has boundaries., at least for now.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

URW said:


> *We are U.R.W. (United Rideshare Workers)*
> 
> We are run by Working Professionals and Rideshare partners.
> 
> ...


Well done. And I hope you go far. But you lost me when you said the rating system is the main priori. For me it is rate.

I also agree SF is the key. Get city management to get the rates fixed and the rest of the country will follow.

Best of Luck.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

Ok...I will follow you on Twitter. All two posts.


----------



## Muki (Oct 15, 2015)

Good luck with the union. Everyone has to start somewhere and somebody has to stand up to Travis. He's setting an awful precedent with all this other low-paid "on demand" app jobs that offer companies all the benefits of having employees with none of the obligations. Everyone wants to be "The Uber of..." some industry and follow that model. Someone has to try and contain this fire.


----------



## URW (Dec 9, 2015)

I hope we can count on your support. With support of the masses we can fight the injustice and with the help of the AFL-CIO.


----------

