# Why is Uber so scared of this new CA bill?



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Just got this email...
Dear ,
California is and always will be Uber's first home, but the ability for you to earn an income by providing safe, reliable rides is on the line.

That's why legislators need to hear from you.

On Wednesday, May 27, the California ridesharing community is organizing a rally to take a stand against AB 24, a bill that, if it were to pass, would end ridesharing in California as we know it. *Can we count on you to make it?

Seems pretty common sense...

Better background checks because we all know the background Uber does is a joke. Plus, registering your car as a ride sharing car. Now that might be a problem since 99% of Uber drivers aren't properly insured.

If this is a problem and Uber concedes it too then the answer seems pretty simple to me. Provide proper insurance for both driver and Pax. 
*
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-ab-24-bill-tnc-uber-lyft-20150305-story.html
*
*


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Lastly, what kind of dufus would fight for Uber? They need to be better regulated IMO.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Randy Shears would fight for uber.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

I welcome fingerprint checks and drug tests, let's thin the herd.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Uber is against it because it will thin the herd way too much!


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber is against it because it will thin the herd way too much!


As someone who's already been fingerprinted and had a background check done by the state and as a non-drug user, I welcome the thinning


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Beur said:


> As someone who's already been fingerprinted and had a background check done by the state and as a non-drug user, I welcome the thinning


Nobody can really argue against proper background checks, proper insurance and drug testing. However, thinning the herd means less profits. I think the whole UberX model is flawed. When they lose the independant contract battle, like just happened in Florida, things will dramatically change.


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

Register my car as a ride share? No thanks, how would that look on a Carfax history? Or to a finance company?
Or to your insurance company?

Looks like I'll be done that day.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Nobody can really argue against proper background checks, proper insurance and drug testing. However, thinning the herd means less profits. I think the whole UberX model is flawed. When they lose the independant contract battle, like just happened in Florida, things will dramatically change.


Less profits for Uber, more demand for less drivers equals more profits for qualified drivers.

Uber is flawed.


----------



## Showa50 (Nov 30, 2014)

It causes a barrier for new drivers to enter and slows new hire growth.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

LAuberX said:


> Register my car as a ride share? No thanks, how would that look on a Carfax history? Or to a finance company?
> Or to your insurance company?
> 
> Looks like I'll be done that day.


No you will not.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Showa50 said:


> It causes a barrier for new drivers to enter and slows new hire growth.


Personally I would love to see a limit per city asked on population just like they do with cabs.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Showa50 said:


> It causes a barrier for new drivers to enter and slows new hire growth.


Exactly. We all know that's the backbone of Uber and that's gonna be a whole lot of hoops to jump through for newbies. This is way more about Ubers bottom line then any faux concern for their "Partners".


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Lidman said:


> Randy Shears would fight for uber.


Uberman would do just about anything to keep getting those $400 referrals.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Beur said:


> As someone who's already been fingerprinted and had a background check done by the state and as a non-drug user, I welcome the thinning


You don't drink alcohol?


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

JLA said:


> Lastly, what kind of dufus would fight for Uber? They need to be better regulated IMO.


You mean regulated and enforced.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> You don't drink alcohol?


What does that have to do with background checks and testing for illicit drugs.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

Showa50 said:


> It causes a barrier for new drivers to enter and slows new hire growth.


It's not even just the drug tests. I remember the day I signed up. I waffled for hours, until I realized that I could practically be online to try it out the next day. If drivers have to actually go do one more real world thing before hearing back from uber, uber loses out on all the drivers who were on the fence but were swayed by the incredibly low barrier to entry. Slows hiring, increases dependence on veteran drivers who know _exactly_ when not to go online.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Beur said:


> What does that have to do with background checks and testing for illicit drugs.


I thought you wrote you did not do drugs? I did not see you say anything specifically about the drugs that the sheeple have allowed the racist corporate prison industry to perpetuate a war on. You said, braggged, you did not do drugs, Now you say you do drugs. Which is it? Impairment is impairment! Personal responsibility is personal responsibility.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> I thought you wrote you did not do drugs? I did not see you say anything specifically about the drugs that the sheeple have allowed the racist corporate prison industry to perpetuate a war on. You said, braggged, you did not do drugs, Now you say you do drugs. Which is it? Impairment is impairment! Personal responsibility is personal responsibility.


You need to put the pipe down, nowhere did I say I so drugs.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> I welcome fingerprint checks and drug tests, let's thin the herd.


Thats pretty discriminatory to double amputees on medical marijuana to ease their pain. ...


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

*There's also some competing Bills coming their way. Looks like some big changes are coming soon. CA will be a serious black eye for Uber.*

AB 612, one of two competing measures making their way through the Legislature, would require ride-sharing companies to carry the same 24-7 commercial insurance coverage as regular taxis.

Insurance companies have backed a bill by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Concord), AB 2293, that would make the ridesharing company responsible for "primary" coverage any time a driver's ridesharing app is turned on and he or she is available to pick up passengers for money.

Also, from the California Public Utilities Commission; Ridesharing companies also must provide medical, comprehensive and collision and uninsured driver coverages, the proposed decision said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-0611-rideshare-fight-20140611-story.html


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Please Vote:

*Ongoing Poll | Fingerprint Background Checks & Drug Tests*


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

If you read enough Uber materials, you see they say they don't hire 1) Violent criminals. 2) Predators 3) and I think the other was thieves. They don't say all drivers have clean records. We also have a huge % of the under age 30 crowd who smoke pot. Does Uber want them excluded from hire as long as their not driving high? It's legal is some states. It's kind of not Uber's business what legal things you do on your day off.
If they relinquish control of background checks, that info will get released. Their latest trend is to again state they would do the background checks themselves but be subject to lawsuits if they let dangerous workers on the road.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> Thats pretty discriminatory to double amputees on medical marijuana to ease their pain. ...


That's why they have toes!


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

troubleinrivercity said:


> It's not even just the drug tests. I remember the day I signed up. I waffled for hours, until I realized that I could practically be online to try it out the next day. If drivers have to actually go do one more real world thing before hearing back from uber, uber loses out on all the drivers who were on the fence but were swayed by the incredibly low barrier to entry. Slows hiring, increases dependence on veteran drivers who know _exactly_ when not to go online.


From my perspective, Uber is cultivating a field of very casual, disposable drivers. They prefer drivers not have commercial insurance for example. The obvious reason is they need an endless string of easy hires. I use the word hire, because in the minds of many, the idea that Uber drivers are independent contractors is a bit of a stretch. They pay their drivers after all, not the other way around. The procedure is meant to be causal. Any transgression is something Uber lawyers have made sure the company is not responsible for. Another reason for encouraging drivers not to have commercial insurance is that without it- an Uber driver can't possibly create their own real business, they have zero leverage.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Beur said:


> You need to put the pipe down, nowhere did I say I so drugs.


I did not say you did drugs. I asked if you drank your drug of choice. You know that alcohol is a drug right? You said you did not do drugs, so I just wanted to make sure your
hypocrisy was not showing. So you do not drink, good for you.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Huberis said:


> From my perspective, Uber is cultivating a field of very casual, disposable drivers. They prefer drivers not have commercial insurance for example. The obvious reason is they need an endless string of easy hires. I use the word hire, because in the minds of many, the idea that Uber drivers are independent contractors is a bit of a stretch. They pay their drivers after all, not the other way around. The procedure is meant to be causal. Any transgression is something Uber lawyers have made sure the company is not responsible for. Another reason for encouraging drivers not to have commercial insurance is that without it- an Uber driver can't possibly create their own real business, they have zero leverage.


Very interesting take and some stuff I hadn't thought of before. The insurance thing is Ubers Achilles heel. Uber is good on scare tactics (it's the end of ride sharing!!) but not so good when it comes to facts. Speaking of professional liars..er.. I mean uber lawyers they seem to be the only ones upset about all this.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

JLA said:


> *There's also some competing Bills coming their way. Looks like some big changes are coming soon. CA will be a serious black eye for Uber.*
> 
> AB 612, one of two competing measures making their way through the Legislature, would require ride-sharing companies to carry the same 24-7 commercial insurance coverage as regular taxis.
> 
> ...


This is an old story from last year, AB 612 did not pass. AB 2293 did pass and was signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this year.

http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/20...alif-bill-on-insurance-for-lyft-uber-sidecar/


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

JLA said:


> *There's also some competing Bills coming their way. Looks like some big changes are coming soon. CA will be a serious black eye for Uber.*
> 
> AB 612, one of two competing measures making their way through the Legislature, would require ride-sharing companies to carry the same 24-7 commercial insurance coverage as regular taxis.
> 
> ...


AB 24 is the resurrection of AB 612 by Adrin Nazarian. He may be able to push it through this time.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> That's why they have toes!


I never thought of that!!


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

It's the reason I would never invest in Uber. Regulations could devalue them in an instant.

The problem Uber has here is they need drivers as much as they need passengers. Without passengers, they don't have drivers and without drivers, they don't have passengers. Any regulation that could impede Uber getting drivers on the road will cause an increase in wait times, surge pricing and upset passengers. 

Since cab companies have to go through fingerprint background checks which could be a two week long process, once a driver passes that check, that driver could have already found another job leaving only the lesser qualified individuals who have actually passed the background check to drive. If Uber has to go through the same processes, that would eliminate a lot of possible drivers. It's basic competition within the workforce. 

Humans want simple and easy. If you give someone a phone and say go start driving now, they will be highly motivated to do so. But if you have to tell someone you need to go downtown, pay a fee, wait two weeks for your check to go through and in the process sit on the phone for an hour with your insurance company to get the proper insurance, they will lose motivation within an hour. 

It's a good reason on why Uber is in a tight race to get self driving cars on the road. If regulations hit Uber before these cars are on the road, drivers are lost, passenger satisfaction decreases, devaluation hits and there is no money left to continue on that extremely expensive project.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

"Why is Uber so scared of this new CA bill?" They're scared of any new bill that drains cash from their coffers.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Read somewhere their burn rate is close to a billion a month. Lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, court settlements, car research and development, mapping company purchase and the list goes on and on.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Lack9133 said:


> If regulations hit Uber before these cars are on the road, drivers are lost, passenger satisfaction decreases, devaluation hits and there is no money left to continue on that extremely expensive project.


Your post is a perfect illustration of fallacy of "Slippery Slope"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Here are some facts for you:
NYC is the most regulated Uber market. It is also Uber's biggest market. NYC UberX Drivers have the Earnings/Hour with the highest Rates.


----------



## Streets (Apr 22, 2015)

The answer is that they (Uber, etc) will be treated with the responsibilities of a professional transportation service provider, not just some ********* operation gouging its runners for 20-30% of the take.

The undercutting of taxi pricing, coupled with the cost of time required to use public transit, make UberX good value for the consumer. However, the X pricing bears none of the industry standard regulation costs (industry mandated insurance levels, workers comp, minimum wage, etc), which is why it's a gypsy service and able to offer such impossibly low fares. Total revenue may drop if tens of thousands of riders who pay for millions of rides annually balk at paying current Blackcar or Taxi pricing for industry compliant rides; but that will provide space for further industry adaptation and evolution (Opoli's Priceline-like consumer fare bidding).

As someone currently on the sidelines, I await the resolution of the lawsuits and the likely thinning of the herd. It's amazing to me that in some of the high demand markets the Black service, which is comprised of industry standard insured and compliant drivers/operators, has been closed to new applicants; however this is the same company that directs its X drivers to commit what amounts to insurance fraud (driving in voilation of provisions against for-hire operation, lying by omission of for-hire operation when reporting accidents) and will in the least lead to dramatic rises of driver premiums if not outright policy cancelations, before an Uber secondary policy may possibly consider paying out a nickel (only after deductible is levied, and only if claim is not denied by Uber).


----------



## Clifford Chong (May 3, 2015)

LAuberX said:


> Register my car as a ride share? No thanks, how would that look on a Carfax history? Or to a finance company?
> Or to your insurance company?
> 
> Looks like I'll be done that day.


True. All this can be grievous to many Uber users and it should be taken seriously.

A car registered as a ridesharing vehicle will definitely lower its resale value by the 1000s of dollars lost.

No insurance company in the world would like the idea of a person under 30 working in a ridesharing company. Rates would soar.

The loss would be too extensive and Ubering for many, many individuals would be out of the question.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

JLA said:


> Just got this email...
> Dear ,
> California is and always will be Uber's first home, but the ability for you to earn an income by providing safe, reliable rides is on the line.
> 
> ...


California will be the beginning and the end of UBER. Aside from tighter regulations from the State, it's up against the PARTNER or EMPLOYEE lawsuit (which it will lose - see the Florida UBER partner recognized as employee for unemployment benefits case), the Background Check lawsuit by both San Francisco County and Los Angeles County (which it will lose - see bans by Germany, France, Italy, China, Mexico, etc.) and just sheer competition from a better App that will come to California (see CoachCall on the east coast.)

One of the key provisions of any professional driving job is the random drug test. I've taken at least 4 random drug tests a year for the past 20 years as a limo driver in California. The drug testing lab already knew I was a pass as soon as I walked in the door. I've seen veteran Chauffeurs lose their jobs because they tested positive for pot. A former member of the Detroit Red Wings was crippled years ago because his limo driver was drunk and stoned. So, bring on the drug testing. And UBER will be no more. They'll be just another limo/cab company trying to undercut the competition by raiding their customers and losing money on cheap rides.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Clifford Chong said:


> True. All this can be grievous to many Uber users and it should be taken seriously.
> 
> A car registered as a ridesharing vehicle will definitely lower its resale value by the 1000s of dollars lost.
> 
> ...


Worried about losing 1000.00

Yet loss tens of thousands a year in income ?????

Penny wise dollar foolish


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

LADriver said:


> California will be the beginning and the end of UBER. Aside from tighter regulations from the State, it's up against the PARTNER or EMPLOYEE lawsuit (which it will lose - see the Florida UBER partner recognized as employee for unemployment benefits case), the Background Check lawsuit by both San Francisco County and Los Angeles County (which it will lose - see bans by Germany, France, Italy, China, Mexico, etc.) and just sheer competition from a better App that will come to California (see CoachCall on the east coast.)
> 
> One of the key provisions of any professional driving job is the random drug test. I've taken at least 4 random drug tests a year for the past 20 years as a limo driver in California. The drug testing lab already knew I was a pass as soon as I walked in the door. I've seen veteran Chauffeurs lose their jobs because they tested positive for pot. A former member of the Detroit Red Wings was crippled years ago because his limo driver was drunk and stoned. So, bring on the drug testing. And UBER will be no more. They'll be just another limo/cab company trying to undercut the competition by raiding their customers and losing money on cheap rides.


It already is the case

I am personally witnessing the push back

It's happening at higher tier customers 
It will work it's way down I'm sure

I've had the best year so far 
Prize is comming to those who stick around


----------



## Selcric (Sep 1, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Your post is a perfect illustration of fallacy of "Slippery Slope"
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> 
> Here are some facts for you:
> ...


You are right about slippery slope fallacy, but in the vein of using good data it should be noted that both NY and SF also have the highest costs of living. Somehow that logic doesn't apply to LA.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Selcric said:


> You are right about slippery slope fallacy, but in the vein of using good data it should be noted that both NY and SF also have the highest costs of living. Somehow that logic doesn't apply to LA.


Yes NY and SF are higher in cost of living. However, LA ain't far behind.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> Worried about losing 1000.00
> 
> Yet loss tens of thousands a year in income ?????
> 
> Penny wise dollar foolish


I think Cliffords main point was that for the average X driver these regulations will just be too expensive. We already get shit compensation with the current situation and these regulations will more then likely be the tipping point for most.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

JLA said:


> I think Cliffords main point was that for the average X driver these regulations will just be too expensive. We already get shit compensation with the current situation and these regulations will more then likely be the tipping point for most.


At the rates uber operates you guys are @ third of taxi rate uber takes 20% plus on top

Only government can twist ubers arm ( proven in many cities & countries)

Gov will start somewere with regulation a bit at a time ending in drivers been fully protected ( including income )

What is a cat scratch after yo been mauled by a tiger

You are losding thousands a year in well earned & deserved income 
Because of uber scam


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> At the rates uber operates you guys are @ third of taxi rate uber takes 20% plus on top
> 
> Only government can twist ubers arm ( proven in many cities & countries)
> 
> ...


Yeah, I hear what your saying. I have to say that Chi1cabby illustrated that point well.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

"On Wednesday, May 27, the California ridesharing community is organizing a rally to take a stand against AB 24"

Today is the day. Everyone get out your signs and go take a stand for Uber!! LMAO.

Anyone showing up would perfectly illustrate the "Penny wise dollar foolish ".


----------



## Instigator2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

observer said:


> Less profits for Uber, more demand for less drivers equals more profits for qualified drivers.
> 
> Uber is flawed.


and don't forget more costs/expenses for the driver too...


----------

