# Uber Agrees To Pay $28.5 Million Settlement To 25 Million Riders



## SafeT (Nov 23, 2015)

*Uber Agrees To Pay $28.5 Million Settlement To 25 Million Riders*

The lawsuits claim that despite the fee levied on riders, Uber has not adequately screened its drivers.

Uber officials said that moving forward they will rename the "Safe Ride Fee" as a "Booking Fee," and that they will use that fee to cover safety as well as additional operational costs that could arise in the future.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...28-5-million-settlement-to-25-million-riders/


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

Or why the SRF is now called the "booking fee" ... so each rider gets what, .50?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Classic class action law suit. The attorneys get paid, injured parties get a coupon and a kick in the ass.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Hurtful to the big U nonetheless. 
Saw it this morning on Flipboard, cheered for the 28 mil hit.


----------



## RightTurnClyde (Dec 9, 2015)

Seems pathetic and underhanded to change the "SRF" name to the now "Booking Fee". Hopefully they'll get sued again and have to change to the name to "Made Up Fake Uber Overhead Moneygrab Fee".

Come to think of it; I have no points on my license, no accidents, and havent raped, stole from, or assaulted anyone. I need a "SDF" or safe driver fee; you know, a fee that I use the cover safety, as well as additional operating costs that could arise in the future (just like ole Uber)


----------



## Dts08 (Feb 25, 2015)

I wonder if Uber is going to reemburst drivers they deducted these fees from???


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RightTurnClyde said:


> Hopefully they'll get sued again and have to change to the name to "Made Up Fake Uber Overhead Moneygrab Fee".


How do you figure?
That fee (now correctly renamed and explained) covers operational costs associated with providing liability insurance coverage to riders (and some degree, drivers) as well as the costs of background checks.
You can call it a "made up fake Uber overhead Moneygrab fee" - but then *how do you explain that it is NOT charged when a rider books a commercially insured, licensed livery driver *(UberBLACK or UberTaxi)? Or explain why the fee is so much higher in Detroit, the city with the highest auto insurance rates in the US)?

And more importantly - who the hell cares?
If Uber stopped charging that fee tomorrow (regardless of what they call it), my earnings wouldn't go up or down. Uber can charge riders whatever they want - or issue them a gold bar for each trip they take... all I care about is what my EARNINGS are for each trip.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If Uber stopped charging that fee tomorrow (regardless of what they call it), my earnings wouldn't go up or down. Uber can charge riders whatever they want - or issue them a gold bar for each trip they take... all I care about is what my EARNINGS are for each trip.


If Uber stopped charging that fee, and DIDN'T reduce the minimum fare in kind, then you would definitely see an increase in earnings, at least on minimum fare rides (on all rides technically, it is just more visible on a min-fare).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> If Uber stopped charging that fee, and DIDN'T reduce the minimum fare in kind, then you would definitely see an increase in earnings, at least on minimum fare rides (on all rides technically, it is just more visible on a min-fare).


True, however: The minimum fares publishd specifically say they include the SRF/BF.
If Uber eliminated the SRF/BF, the min FARE would be lower -
but the driver min EARNINGS would not change.
(ie: if they elimnated the SRF/BF but didn't change the min fare to reflect the elimination, that would result in a *FARE INCREASE* - which would result in an increase in driver EARNINGS on min fare rides.)

Nice try, though.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The minimum fares publishd spcifically say they include the SRF/BF.
> True, however if Uber eliminated the SRF/BF, the min FARE would be lower -
> but the driver min EARNINGS would not change.
> (ie: if they elimnated the SRF/BF but didn't change the min fare to reflect the elimination, that would result in a *FARE INCREASE* - which would result in an increase in driver EARNINGS on min fare rides.)
> ...


I did say "and didn't reduce the minimum fare in kind". This was written with an optimistic view, which, while we know is unlikely when working with Uber, is still a valid way of looking at the situation.

I am unsure if when SRF was first introduced if Uber increased fares by $1 to compensate. Knowing Uber, I would imagine that they did NOT, and they simply took that $1 out of the pocket of the driver without asking.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> I did say "and didn't reduce the minimum fare in kind". This was written with an optimistic view, which, while we know is unlikely when working with Uber, is still a valid way of looking at the situation.
> 
> I am unsure if when SRF was first introduced if Uber increased fares by $1 to compensate. Knowing Uber, I would imagine that they did NOT, and they simply took that $1 out of the pocket of the driver without asking.


hey - sorry ... I didn't mean that to sound like a rebuke! I know what you meant... I was just clarifying what I was saying becuase there are minions of folks here that still want to believe that what Uber charges clients in fees has a direct effect on driver earnings.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Dts08 said:


> I wonder if Uber is going to reemburst drivers they deducted these fees from???


Of course UBER is not going to give those fees to the Drivers. Especially since they are now going to call them "booking Fees" which were what they were in the first place. But it is another loss for UBER in the courts. Which is a great thing.


----------



## Drive777 (Jan 23, 2015)

Now that Uber has free reign to call it a "booking fee" I imagine there's no cap on future amounts that can be charged.

It's been discussed before but why raise the rates when they can just up the booking fee to $3 per ride, $5, $10, whatever they want.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

This is great. I have long wanted to put a sign the passengers could read that showed the fare, the booking fee and the percentage of the total fare of the booking fee was. That will now be much easier.


----------



## Dts08 (Feb 25, 2015)

That booking fee should fall under their commission, after all that what they are taking the commission for..to book trips for us...a double fee..another class action in the making..but before I continue, do we as driver pay this fee also..


----------



## UberPasco (Oct 18, 2015)

andaas said:


> If Uber stopped charging that fee, and DIDN'T reduce the minimum fare in kind, then you would definitely see an increase in earnings, at least on minimum fare rides (on all rides technically, it is just more visible on a min-fare).


If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle....


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How do you figure?
> That fee (now correctly renamed and explained) covers operational costs associated with providing liability insurance coverage to riders (and some degree, drivers) as well as the costs of background checks.
> You can call it a "made up fake Uber overhead Moneygrab fee" - but then *how do you explain that it is NOT charged when a rider books a commercially insured, licesned livery driver *(UberBLACK or UberTaxi)? Or explain why the fee is so much higher in Detroit, the city with the highest auto insurance rates in the US)?
> 
> ...


The SRF is another potential landmine for Uber. Correct me, but it seems Uber is avoiding any specific reference to insurance regarding the SRF. And this is likely due to the insurance industry regulations. The SRF is essentially insurance, and Uber is possibly not actually authorized to sell insurance in that way. They are taking payments for providing commercial livery insurance.
It's, as per usual, pretty suspect.

Insurance lawyers..."Come and get it."


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Cooking Fee is more accurate.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

stuber said:


> The SRF is another potential landmine for Uber. Correct me, but it seems Uber is avoiding any specific reference to insurance regarding the SRF. And this is likely due to the insurance industry regulations. The SRF is essentially insurance, and Uber is possibly not actually authorized to sell insurance in that way. They are taking payments for providing commercial livery insurance.
> It's, as per usual, pretty suspect.
> 
> Insurance lawyers..."Come and get it."


I agree


----------



## Driving4Dollars (Feb 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How do you figure?
> That fee (now correctly renamed and explained) covers operational costs associated with providing liability insurance coverage to riders (and some degree, drivers) as well as the costs of background checks.
> You can call it a "made up fake Uber overhead Moneygrab fee" - but then *how do you explain that it is NOT charged when a rider books a commercially insured, licesned livery driver *(UberBLACK or UberTaxi)? Or explain why the fee is so much higher in Detroit, the city with the highest auto insurance rates in the US)?
> 
> ...


This reply only concerns your last paragraph, about driver earnings. I agree completely with your other comments.

If Uber retroactively reduces this fee it absolutely affects your earnings.

The pax agreed to pay a total trip charge, and paid it after the trip. If the calculation for the total's division included a lower Uber fee or no fee, the driver's 80% is also calculated including the portion of the trip charge no longer attributed to the Uber fee. A lot of money would then be due to drivers because they were owed 80% of the cancelled fee (or the reduction amount) plus interest since the date it was due to be paid drivers by Uber.

Into the future, pax trip charges could go down if the fee were eliminated or reduced. However, since the market history proves pax are willing to pay the higher trip charges, a rational Uber would raise mileage and time charges to earn the same total for a future trip. This raise in charges entitles drivers to share in the future higher mileage and time charges.

To instead lower future pax payments, since no resistance to Uber's trip charges in the past seems to exist (based upon Uber's huge acceptance by the public) would be irrational under the principles of economics, and should be grounds for investors and stockholders to consider a management change.


----------



## Altima ATL (Jul 13, 2015)

Booking fee?

I would like to book a ride for next Tuesday.


----------



## excel2345 (Dec 14, 2015)

Driving4Dollars said:


> This reply only concerns your last paragraph, about driver earnings. I agree completely with your other comments.
> 
> If Uber retroactively reduces this fee it absolutely affects your earnings.
> 
> ...


The issue is that Uber doesn't seem to operate like a rational business at times. Most businesses work on the premise of supply and demand. Pricing their product to be competitive but also high enough to get a good return on investment. Uber pricing has always been competitive with taxi's and provided a better service to the rider. Therefore pricing should inch up, not down until there is resistance.(they also dropped the fare in Bos by .07)
When you have a product people will buy, manufacturers will make(us) there isn't a reason to keep squeezing the manufacturer unless you can help them be more efficient, and cars have a base cost to operate.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Hahaha yes! This was easily avoidable in the front end. Lies and greed. Btw isn't the 20-30% they take off each ride to cover expenses? They know the fee is inflated or they wouldn't have insisted on hiding behind the cloak of safety expenses. 

They screwed themselves by fighting every single major city on safety regulation due to cost when the SRF would more than we'll cover the additional cost of reasonable requirements imposed by cities. 

Still $28m is barely a drop in the bucket it's about how much they pay for their crappy insurance policy. Can't wait for another suit with punitive damages. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## maxista (Dec 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How do you figure?
> That fee (now correctly renamed and explained) covers operational costs associated with providing liability insurance coverage to riders (and some degree, drivers) as well as the costs of background checks.
> You can call it a "made up fake Uber overhead Moneygrab fee" - but then *how do you explain that it is NOT charged when a rider books a commercially insured, licensed livery driver *(UberBLACK or UberTaxi)? Or explain why the fee is so much higher in Detroit, the city with the highest auto insurance rates in the US)?
> 
> ...


If you drive for Lyft as well, you'd know that the "fee" in question is taken out of the fare total on Uber, and added to the fare on Lyft. What that means is that the fee actually affects the net percentage Uber is taking from us. Here's an example from my city:

Min Uber ride = 4.80.
-1.80 fee =3.00
3.00*.8=2.40 is my minimum take home.

Lyft min ride 5.55, why? Because the 1.55 gets ADDED to the total, so while we only see 4.00, the PAX sees a total of 5.55.
4.00*.8=3.20 min take.

Moral of the story? On Uber, the "fee" is charged to the driver, on Lyft, the rider pays it. Huge difference. This makes the NET take on Uber on a min ride 2.4/4.8 50%!


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Dts08 said:


> That booking fee should fall under their commission, after all that what they are taking the commission for..to book trips for us...a double fee..another class action in the making..but before I continue, do we as driver pay this fee also..


No, it should be listed separately on the customer bill so this it is NOT considered part of the fare. I don't like that it is counted in my total fare, (gross income).

Uber uses this to manipulate the amount of money they day we are making. The public doesn't know we get 0 of the SRF, the just see they were charged XX amount and the we get 72-80% of the fare. It's hard to gain support when people think we are make a substantial amount more than we are making.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Dts08 said:


> I wonder if Uber is going to reemburst drivers they deducted these fees from???


What about the UberBlack drivers that are being forced to take UberX runs? What's up with that fee? They already have commercial insurance. Seems like another lawsuit brewing!


----------



## Lyftonly (Nov 12, 2015)

Drive777 said:


> Now that Uber has free reign to call it a "booking fee" I imagine there's no cap on future amounts that can be charged.
> 
> It's been discussed before but why raise the rates when they can just up the booking fee to $3 per ride, $5, $10, whatever they want.


Exactly! They will never pay drivers good money ever again. I don't understand why it's so hard for you guys (uber drivers) to accept and just quit or move to Lyft. We need to sink uber then do the same to Lyft if they get greedy by driving for any other platform that comes along untill someone gets it right. Uber gots to go, it's the worse corporate scum and D bags that could of possibly owned the market. Sad that such a revolutionary idea with the potential to single handedly pull the economy out of recession is run by morons


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

maxista said:


> If you drive for Lyft as well, you'd know that the "fee" in question is taken out of the fare total on Uber, and added to the fare on Lyft. What that means is that the fee actually affects the net percentage Uber is taking from us. Here's an example from my city:
> 
> Min Uber ride = 4.80.
> -1.80 fee =3.00
> ...


The only difference between Lyft and Uber is the NOTATION of the fee - not how it effects the earnings.
Uber makes the rider pay it to the driver and then collects it from the driver.
Lyft takes it from the rider.
NEITHER company pays the driver any portion of the fee - or uses it in the calculation of the fare earnings.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.


----------



## maxista (Dec 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The only difference between Lyft and Uber is the NOTATION of the fee - not how it effects the earnings.
> Uber makes the rider pay it to the driver and then collects it from the driver.
> Lyft takes it from the rider.
> NEITHER company pays the driver any portion of the fee - or uses it in the calculation of the fare earnings.
> Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.


Right. However, the min far on Uber is 5.55 and the min take still 80 cents more.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

maxista said:


> Right. However, the min far on Uber is 5.55 and the min take still 80 cents more.


I sounds as if you don't understand that the min FARE is different in every market - as is the SRF/BF...
and that the fees (ANY fees) have NO BEARING on driver's earnings. 
While min FARE is 'x' - the min fare includes the SRF/BF, so earnings on a min fare rider are:
*(x-SRF) - (uberFee%)*


----------



## maxista (Dec 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I sounds as if you don't understand that the min FARE is different in every market - as is the SRF/BF... and the fees (ANY fees) have NO BEARING on driver's earnings. While min FARE is 'x' - the min fare includes the SRF/BF, so earnings ona min fare rider are calculated like this:
> (x-SRF)*(uberFee%)


I know it's different in every market, I was just using my city as an example.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

maxista said:


> I know it's different in every market, I was just using my city as an example.


Your min 'take' (earnings on a min fare trip) would not change by a singe penny if the SRF/BF disappeared, or were double tomorrow. It is a NON IMPACT fee that the rider pays.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

If no srf/bf 
Uber would just lower the minimum fare,
Lower minimum fares = more trips,
More trips = higher earnings,
Uber on...


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> NEITHER company pays the driver any portion of the fee - or uses it in the calculation of the fare earnings


You're 100% correct,but when SRF was introduced(april of 2014) it was part of the rate cut and was 100% ours to keep.


Michael - Cleveland said:


> Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.


It has direct impact on our earnings ,why? SRF is part of the uber's gross fares(lyft's not) and everywhere you look ,uber is offering hourly guarantees,
for a driver who does 100 trips a week ,thats $700 to $800 less income a month.


----------



## MzBehavn (May 24, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> True, however: The minimum fares publishd specifically say they include the SRF/BF.
> If Uber eliminated the SRF/BF, the min FARE would be lower -
> but the driver min EARNINGS would not change.
> (ie: if they elimnated the SRF/BF but didn't change the min fare to reflect the elimination, that would result in a *FARE INCREASE* - which would result in an increase in driver EARNINGS on min fare rides.)
> ...


It would impact your gross on taxes, which can make a huge difference.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

arto71 said:


> You're 100% correct,but when SRF was introduced(april of 2014) it was part of the rate cut and was 100% ours to keep.
> 
> It has direct impact on our earnings ,why? SRF is part of the uber's gross fares(lyft's not) and everywhere you look ,uber is offering hourly guarantees,
> for a driver who does 100 trips a week ,thats $700 to $800 less income a month.


You don't get it. UBER's gross fares (what they charge) and Uber's SRF (what they charge) are no one's business but Uber's and thier clients (despite what their driver's agreement says to the contrary).
You want your own TNC - start one! Or find one that will pay better.
But if you drive for Uber or Lyft, the only control you have is whether to accept a trip or not - and whether to accept the terms of that trip or not. Yes, workers are being manipulated, abused and exploited. But that's not going to change the dog from wagging it's tail.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MzBehavn said:


> It would impact your gross on taxes, which can make a huge difference.


No, it can only impact your gross on taxes if you don't file a return properly. No different than any other expense if you don't claim it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> If no srf/bf
> Uber would just lower the minimum fare,
> Lower minimum fares = more trips,
> More trips = higher earnings,
> Uber on...


If no SRF/BF - the MIN fare would automatically be lowered by that amount - without effecting a driver's earnings by one dime.

MIN FARE w/SRF = $4.70... Earnings = 80% of ($4.70 - $1.70 SRF) = $2.40
MIN FARE w/oSRF = $3.00... Earnings = 80% of ($3.00) = $2.40
Lower Min Fare w/o SRF = No Diff In Earnings.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Altima ATL said:


> Booking fee?
> 
> I would like to book a ride for next Tuesday.


I'll take 2:1 odds on that... oh, not that kind of booking fee?


----------



## MoneyUber4 (Dec 9, 2014)

Guys, the biggest looser on this case were the "Drivers"
(Just to give you a little bit of information of myself. I am a logistic expert, I have worked and shipped thousands of containers, cargo, vehicles etc all over the world and had managed whole ships - also I did study on Insurance in NJ - I had a Property and Casualty Producer License in other words I know about insurance). I have many experiences. I drove a cab in NYC in 1980's, drove trucks etc. Now I am working as Sales Person and I am old.

The Safe Ride fee (*when UBER started to implemented this fee on 2014, it had another name) As, I said on many post last year: No Company can charge an Insurance Fee in any US States unless that company is an Insurance Carrier as ex. Geico. That is the rule of all Depts of Insurance of all the States.

Greed, Uber wanted to charge the drivers for their own insurance and they were looking for a legal way to do it, so they call it: Safe Ride Fee *JUNK FEE (*that is what we call it in the logistic industry. Any additional fee other than the real Ocean/Trucking or Airfare charge. Shipping company use names as bunker charge, fuel charge and others.)

Greedy Uber started to use this tactic with this new Junk Fee to take another bite from the drivers earnings.

Now UBER says in court that the SRF was charged to riders, than the court ruled: UBER must return those funds to riders. (It was an illegal fee).

What about the drivers?
Those funds were taken from drivers' earnings.
Drivers never argued about the problem, drivers lost all those millions and that it is only on that State. What about all 50 States?

We need to push for UBER to operate legally in the States.
Why??
For many years, every carrier in USA is regulated by the Federal. Every carrier must present a rate and junk fees to the FMCDOT, must be reviewed, approved, and published on a tariff web/book or it could not be used. Uber/Lyft act and operate as a National Carrier. They should be regulated.

This up and down with rate and junk fees would have never happened if they (Uber/Lyft) were legal and regulated.

Drivers and Paxs must take action in order to stop their abuse.


----------



## MoneyUber4 (Dec 9, 2014)

And to add to the previous comment.
Again it is illegal for Uber to charge the drivers (so called partners) a 20% fee + a booking fee.

Uber is not charging the pax. Uber is deducting the fee from the drivers earnings. 

Double charging a worker is not ethical at all.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MoneyUber4 said:


> And to add to the previous comment.
> Again is illegal for Uber to charge the drivers (so called partners) a 20% fee + a booking fee.
> Uber is not charging the pax. Uber is deducting the fee from the drivers earnings.
> Double charging a worker is not ethical at all.


Techinically, Uber is REQUIRING the driver to charge the FEE to the pax - and then collecting that FEE from the driver. Just as they do their driver's fee (%). That's what the driver's agreement says. If they need to change the wording of that in the agreement (and be more in line with how Lyft does it) to satisfy a court, they will. 
But that in and of itslef won't change anything about drivers earnings.


----------



## MoneyUber4 (Dec 9, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Techinically, Uber is REQUIRING the driver to charge the FEE to the pax - and then collecting that FEE from the driver. Just as they do their driver's fee (%). That's what the driver's agreement says. If they need to change the wording of that in the agreement (and be more in line with how Lyft does it) to satisfy a court, they will.
> But that in and of itslef won't change anything about drivers earnings.


UBER greed works in a way to deceive everyone. And with their attorneys they have look for a way to try to get around laws until they get caught.

In this case the court caught them and say: No, you are not allowed to charge your miss label fee to the pax and you have to give it back.

As I said, drivers lost that money because the structure of the fare was: the whole fare $ (-) Uber 20% fee *which is already a lot. I think 10% should be enough to charge the drivers. On top of that and in order to deceive the pax and driver, they created the SRF.

The current structure is: Whole Fare $ (-) SFR (which could be 18% of the whole fare) (-) Uber 20% fee

Now greedy Uber said: OK, now we are going to change the SRF name to a booking fee. The booking fee is taking out from the Whole fare.

Drivers should not pay Uber more than 10% of the whole fare.

We need Uber/Lyft to be completely regulated so they don't abuse the drivers anymore.

Uber created their own virtual tariff and Uber charge the pax what ever they want. Drivers are not allowed to say or do anything on the rate, drivers only are accepting the calls from Uber.

Another mater on the air is; Employee status. Uber charge pax what ever they want and then Uber pays the drivers what ever they want (*making the driver an employee and being paid by the employer UBER)

UBER created this virtual thing saying, we are passing most of the earning to the drivers, we (Uber) are acting like an electronic bridge collecting and taking money from pax and passing it over to the drivers. Uber says, we are not drivers employers but an electronic entity that pass funds as a Credit Card company.

Drivers need to go to court and get their idea settle.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

LAuberX said:


> Or why the SRF is now called the "booking fee" ... so each rider gets what, .50?





LAuberX said:


> Or why the SRF is now called the "booking fee" ... so each rider gets what, .50?


Each rider will


LAuberX said:


> Or why the SRF is now called the "booking fee" ... so each rider gets what, .50?


Each rider will get $1.104.
Almost enough to pay for a bottle of water. That is if they get the full amount without attorney fees subtracted from it. It would be more like .78cents if attorney fees are taken out of the amount.


----------



## Friendly Jack (Nov 17, 2015)

Since we have no idea whatsoever how Uber allocates monies received (including the SRF/BF) to cover any particular expense, be it insurance, marketing, office operations, etc., I think it reasonable to look at total dollars of a fare from the rider viewpoint. I am very doubtful that any rider looks at the SRF/BF and considers this amount as being separate from the fare. When Bob's wife asks how much the ride cost that they just took across town, I doubt that he says, "It was $8.30 fare plus a $1.70 SRF". I am fairly certain that he says, "It was $10". Now, the next time that Bob and his wife take that same trip across town I am also fairly certain that they could care less how the fee structure is defined as long as the total amount is still $10 (or less). It could be $1.00 fare plus a $9.00 SRF, or $5.00 fare plus a $5.00 SRF, or $9.00 fare plus a $1.00 SRF, or... $10.00 fare plus no SRF. In any case it is $10 to Bob and his wife and they are probably quite unconcerned with the monies designation. How the total $10 collected as defined by Uber makes a tremendous impact on driver earnings, however, and is in direct correlation with Uber's ability to maximize revenue while maintaining or lowering ride cost. Let's assume a very simple example of a city where Uber provides one million rides at an average total cost of $10 each, yielding ten million dollars gross revenue and a targeted $3.3 million gross ride profit (10 - 1.7 - 1.6 at 20% rake). If Uber eliminated the SRF and reclassified those monies into the fare, then they would need to charge Bob and his wife approximately $16.50 to yield their same monthly $3.3 million gross ride profit at 20% rake. Drivers would earn considerably more than they do currently, assuming no reduction in rides taken. Similarly, if Uber chose to classify the entire rider amount paid as SRF, then they would need to charge Bob and his wife only $3.30 to realize their $3.3 million gross ride profit, assuming that drivers would truly work for nothing and continue providing the same number of rides. I think that it may be naive to think that the SRF is an amount just "passed through" from the rider to Uber and that it does not affect driver earnings. To me, it is the variable that allows Uber to maintain and continue the appearance of a reasonable rake percentage while realizing additional revenue (that is, additional rake percentage) that is impossible for the aggregation of drivers to readily quantify without total ride statistics. Some may say that SRF does not affect rider earnings, but most drivers will say that Uber is taking a 33% rake, not 20%, to keep the ride fare at $10 for Bob and his wife. The real question is what will happen when Uber decides they need $4 million per month from our fictional city? Raise the true fare for Bob and his wife? Raise the SRF and leave the fare unchanged? Raise the rake percentage above 20%? Raise the SRF fee and lower the fare? I think that most of us know who will likely bear the burden of Uber's decision (hint: It won't be Bob and his wife).


----------



## Djc (Jan 6, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Techinically, Uber is REQUIRING the driver to charge the FEE to the pax - and then collecting that FEE from the driver. Just as they do their driver's fee (%). That's what the driver's agreement says. If they need to change the wording of that in the agreement (and be more in line with how Lyft does it) to satisfy a court, they will.
> But that in and of itslef won't change anything about drivers earnings.


You are not correct on SRF/Booking fee affecting driver earnings. In the cities where uber has increased the SRF they have not increased the min fare. Even before the SRF the min fare was $5 in my city they added in $1.15 as SRF but min fare is still $5. The SRF directly affects driver earnings on min fare rides. Another example a 2x surge min fare is $10. SRF is still $1.15 fare to driver is 8.85 less uber cut. On no sure fair to driver is 3.85 less uber cut. That is a big percentage difference of the SRF on driver earnings. Yes fares above minimum there is no direct effect on driver earnings but if they go too high like $5 or $10 SRF then less people will use uber and then affects driver earnings by less rides. They could also increase SRF but reduce base fare amount ($2.00 for my city). That would also reduce driver earnings on above min fare trips.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

Booking Fee is an appropriate term. Like getting booked into jail, it's criminal.


----------



## ArsenalGunner (Sep 11, 2015)

The 25 mil settlement should've went to the drivers. I have over 2k trips, I wonder how much I'd pocket. Let me dream, ****kk you!


----------



## it'sjustme (Oct 25, 2015)

Drive777 said:


> Now that Uber has free reign to call it a "booking fee" I imagine there's no cap on future amounts that can be charged.
> 
> It's been discussed before but why raise the rates when they can just up the booking fee to $3 per ride, $5, $10, whatever they want.


Yep!


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How do you figure?
> That fee (now correctly renamed and explained) covers operational costs associated with providing liability insurance coverage to riders (and some degree, drivers) as well as the costs of background checks.
> You can call it a "made up fake Uber overhead Moneygrab fee" - but then *how do you explain that it is NOT charged when a rider books a commercially insured, licensed livery driver *(UberBLACK or UberTaxi)? Or explain why the fee is so much higher in Detroit, the city with the highest auto insurance rates in the US)?
> 
> ...


You seem to be a nice guy, but sorry you seem not to know or realize that the SRF was "our" base fare so Uber just would receive 80% out of it.
Since Uber is a evil but smart tech company their move was to take that away from us the drivers and make the riders pay a "additional to the fare" fee.

Long story short 80% of the 28,5 Millions are actually our millions, but *even Uber can't hide or run from KARMA !*
Now let them return it to the laughing riders instead of keeping 20% in commissions out of the Millions from us.

It just makes me laugh out loud ! (LOL)


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

Driving4Dollars said:


> This reply only concerns your last paragraph, about driver earnings. I agree completely with your other comments.
> 
> If Uber retroactively reduces this fee it absolutely affects your earnings.
> 
> ...


I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement, but I so not believe that Uber is somehow interested in "raising the price per mile i.e. the drivers payout !

Their vision is a world where is no space for drivers and to attract every citizen to take Uber rides they would even offer it for free - just a booking fee or safe ride fee which in fact is profit in Ubers pockets.
If drivers are stupid enough to continue driving around or below operation costs it, there might be some drivers that would continue driving and giving free water and blowjobs at $0.00 cents per mile

I mean it's great fun driving and meeting new people right??


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SafeT said:


> *Uber Agrees To Pay $28.5 Million Settlement To 25 Million Riders*
> 
> The lawsuits claim that despite the fee levied on riders, Uber has not adequately screened its drivers.
> 
> ...


POST # 1/SafeT: CONGRATULATIONS
on Your 2nd
"Featured Thread"! .....Just to put the
Pittance of $28,500,000 in perspective,
check out the Shamelessly Opulent
"Xx" Hush-hush Las Vegas "Xxtrava-
ganza" that played out across The Strip
last October, and was ONLY COVERED by
the London Mail...who knew ?

KeJorn did! His Threadstarter drew
.....t....w....o...replies ....initially. Let's
see how Fratty Boi's Hypocrisy "plays"
Today :
Http://uberpeople.net/posts/502470

The Photos CLEARLY SHOW the Very
SausageFesty World that "Eddie Mun-
ster's Hairline" inhabits. "BOOBER" ?
YOU be the Judge!

Bison laughs last...AND Best!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

wethepeople said:


> I hope I didn't misunderstand your statement, but I so not believe that Uber is somehow interested in "raising the price per mile i.e. the drivers payout !
> 
> Their vision is a world where is no space for drivers and to attract every citizen to take Uber rides they would even offer it for free - just a booking fee or safe ride fee which in fact is profit in Ubers pockets.
> If drivers are stupid enough to continue driving around or below operation costs it, there might be some drivers that would continue driving and giving free water and blowjobs at $0.00 cents per mile
> ...


POST # 51/wethepeople: As was Best
Said by a "Tyne-on-Spittle"
Neighbor of the Infamous Piranha Bros.,
about Dinsdale, Rabid Younger Sibling,
after "Dinsey" repeatedly nailed hishead
to a Coffee Table or Parlor Floor, on a
Weekly Basis, depending on his Ultra
ViolentMood :

"Ol'Dinsey ? He's Cruel. Cruel...but FAIR!"

NOT: Twilight Zone
.YES: Monty Python's Flying Circus


----------



## TheWhiteTiger (Sep 28, 2015)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Classic class action law suit. The attorneys get paid, injured parties get a coupon and a kick in the ass.


The Lead Class Action Plaintiff might get more than others. But considering the "damage" they faced isn't a big deal, they may not get much.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

SafeT said:


> *Uber Agrees To Pay $28.5 Million Settlement To 25 Million Riders*
> 
> The lawsuits claim that despite the fee levied on riders, Uber has not adequately screened its drivers.
> 
> ...


Isn't that how they justified the fee before?


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You don't get it. UBER's gross fares (what they charge) and Uber's SRF (what they charge) are no one's business but Uber's and thier clients (despite what their driver's agreement says to the contrary).
> You want your own TNC - start one! Or find one that will pay better.
> But if you drive for Uber or Lyft, the only control you have is whether to accept a trip or not - and whether to accept the terms of that trip or not. Yes, workers are being manipulated, abused and exploited. But that's not going to change the dog from wagging it's tail.


Actually, no, we do not have any control over accepting a trip. I was deactivated for my acceptance rate. Not my cancel. That was fine. Just my acceptance and it was lifetime a 51%.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Cou-ber said:


> Actually, no, we do not have any control over accepting a trip. I was deactivated for my acceptance rate. Not my cancel. That was fine. Just my acceptance and it was lifetime a 51%.


Semantics. You have complete control of whether to accept a trip or not - whether to accept a trip and then cancel it. And while you have that control (choice) Uber also has choice (control) over who they run their business and who they choose to permit ti use their app.

Let me give a non-tech example of what I mean:

One part of my business is similar to the 'gig economy' stuff we're seeing. 
I recruit a bunch of people with a certain skill-set who express a desire to be notified of available gigs when we get a job order. When I get the job order, I send it out to those who have registered with me and are close to the job site. The first person who accepts, gets the assignment. If there is only one person within a reasonable distance from the job, and that person doesn't respond to my requests, I stop sending them requests and replace them with someone who will respond. I can't conduct my business if those who register with me do not respond to the job requests I offer. They are under no obligation to accept any particular job - but I absolutely must hear back from them - or they are off my roles.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

They will pay millions for their lies but still refuse to put a tip option for the very backbone and existence of their company.


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 51/wethepeople: As was Best
> Said by a "Tyne-on-Spittle"
> Neighbor of the Infamous Piranha Bros.,
> about Dinsdale, Rabid Younger Sibling,
> ...


Hey Haberdasher.. I want to be very honest and admit that you're the smarter one obviously because.. because I didn't understand your post even after reading it 5 times lol..
I forwarded it to the encryption lab, they are still working on it but it might take weeks they said.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

wethepeople said:


> Hey Haberdasher.. I want to be very honest and admit that you're the smarter one obviously because.. because I didn't understand your post even after reading it 5 times lol..
> I forwarded it to the encryption lab, they are still working on it but it might take weeks they said.


POST #:59/wethepeople: The Encryption
Description Persons
WILL need to Channel 1970's Michael
Palin AND Eric Idle.

For Flummoxed UPNFers, a Fortnight
or Two of Intensive YouTUBEing should
provide Adequate Perspective on MUCH
of Bostonian Bison's allegedly "Cryptic"
Commentary.

Additional Sourcing: George Carlin, Rich-
ard Pryor, Firesign Theatre, South Park.

Bison: Better FUNNY, than
☆ ☆ ☆ FUNNY-LOOKING !


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Semantics. You have complete control of whether to accept a trip or not - whether to accept a trip and then cancel it. And while you have that control (choice) Uber also has choice (control) over who they run their business and who they choose to permit ti use their app.
> 
> Let me give a non-tech example of what I mean:
> 
> ...


I'd argue that no response is a response and you need to listen better.

No example was needed. I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I disagree with is having a contract that I abide to but the other party does not. I disagree with being deactivated for an acceptance rate that is still higher than some that are not. I also disagree with not having access to the data used to make decisions of which I am not asked to take part.

You said we have control. I disagree.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

wethepeople said:


> You seem to be a nice guy, but sorry you seem not to know or realize that the SRF was "our" base fare so Uber just would receive 80% out of it.


Thanks - I'm sure you're a nice guy/gal, too! But I'm afraid that you don't understand the difference between what a base FARE is (what the rider is charged) and what your EARNINGS (what you are paid) are based on. You're not alone in that misconception. <shrug> But whatever... believe what you want.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Cou-ber said:


> I'd argue that no response is a response and you need to listen better.
> 
> No example was needed. I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I disagree with is having a contract that I abide to but the other party does not. I disagree with being deactivated for an acceptance rate that is still higher than some that are not. I also disagree with not having access to the data used to make decisions of which I am not asked to take part.
> 
> You said we have control. I disagree.


I appreciate the comment, but I listen very carefully - and the confusion and lack of understanding over what the Uber Driver Agreement says (which is not always what Uber 'does') is prevalent among most drivers. While the example provided may be of no interest to you, I hope it is illustrative to at least some others.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MoneyUber4 said:


> And to add to the previous comment.
> Again it is illegal for Uber to charge the drivers (so called partners) a 20% fee + a booking fee.
> 
> Uber is not charging the pax. Uber is deducting the fee from the drivers earnings.
> ...


Please refer to the agreement and it's discussion of FEES.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

wethepeople said:


> Hey Haberdasher.. I want to be very honest and admit that you're the smarter one obviously because.. because I didn't understand your post even after reading it 5 times lol..
> I forwarded it to the encryption lab, they are still working on it but it might take weeks they said.


Casuale Haberdasher i dont think the FBI will help, better try MI5.
Or better still, YouTube


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Thanks - I'm sure you're a nice guy/gal, too! But I'm afraid that you don't understand the difference between what a base FARE is (what the rider is charged) and what your EARNINGS (what you are paid) are based on. You're not alone in that misconception. <shrug> But whatever... believe what you want.


please don't be afraid because I know that i'm right for a fact.

Base fare is not what the rider get's charged actually..
base fare is (or was) a part of the total fare, it's reason is to cover the "drive to pin" distance and time the driver has to invest with his time and gas and it's to be understood as a flat fee.
THE DRIVER GOT 80% while Uber took the regular 20% commission of the total fee.
So it was clearly a part of our earnings.

respectfully but YOU seem not to understand the difference between a FARE and a FEE.
For example Tolls, Airport and Parking fees to name some.
The customer pays them but the driver or Uber has no benefit other than collecting and forwarding it to someone else.

I am driving for just over 2 years now and when I started there was no safe ride fee but we had a base fare.
We were used to buy waters and mints to offer it to passengers. not anymore.

After the first farecuts i've seen myself the $1 base fare (I repeat: 80%driver, 20% Uber) was gone but surprise surprise!!
Now we had a $1 Safe ride fee that was "additionally to the fare" means ( 0% driver while 100% for Uber)

That's how Uber STOLE FROM THE DRIVER ! $0.80 per trip from all drivers all cities.
that's a few million dollars a day maybe? As I see their tactic worked so well that you even believed their lies.

Maybe you haven't even realized that very shortly before the recent january rate cuts Uber had doubled up the SRF from usually $1 to $1.95 but some markets even higher. So you tell me how I was wrong?

thank you


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

wethepeople said:


> please don't be afraid because I know that i'm right for a fact.


You're entitled to your own opinion. You're nto entitled to make up your own facts.I think we're discussing two different things here... I realize I may have misunderstood you talking about BASE FARE as the MIN FARE?


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

thank you.. but yes that might have been the case and as I said, I'm not up to argue with you or making one of us look stupid.
It's more about educating and helping eachother.

And yes, that seemed to be a simple missunderstanding between us.

Update: oh hold on bro.. I did not mention minimum fare I was talking about the Base Fare that we used to have and how it was smartly replaced by the SRF which is not being shared with us.
Not about Minimum Fares


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

wethepeople said:


> Update: oh hold on bro.. I did not mention minimum fare I was talking about the Base Fare that we used to have and how it was smartly replaced by the SRF which is not being shared with us.
> Not about Minimum Fares


Yup - my only comment there is 'who cares'... 'before srf' was another lifetime ago - the business/pricing model is not the same now as it was then - and hasn't been for mare than a year. The entire X/XL platform isn't 5 years old in total. Can we talk about the here and now - as in the last 18 months or so that we've been working under this Fare and Pay structure?


----------



## wethepeople (Oct 10, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup - my only comment there is 'who cares'... 'before srf' was another lifetime ago - the business/pricing model is not the same now as it was then - and hasn't been for mare than a year. The entire X/XL platform isn't 5 years old in total. Can we talk about the here and now - as in the last 18 months or so that we've been working under this Fare and Pay structure?


Once you learned that we had a basefare and our time which is now wasted while driving to a PIN
under "todays business modell" which you totally seem to be happy about.

I did never accept it and I'm trying to raise awareness that it's not OK for us drivers.
you write about "who cares" well about every driver except you I guess.
What if Uber's new business modell was 10% for you and %90 for Uber while you drive your own car.
You're just helping them to achieve that future milestone.

I say keep on driving.. "who cares"


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Semantics. You have complete control of whether to accept a trip or not - whether to accept a trip and then cancel it. And while you have that control (choice) Uber also has choice (control) over who they run their business and who they choose to permit ti use their app.
> 
> Let me give a non-tech example of what I mean:
> 
> ...


But I'm guessing you don't send people job requests they would obviously lose money taking.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

wethepeople said:


> which you totally seem to be happy about.


Are you intentionally being blind to who I am, what I post and my advocacy for drivers?


> I did never accept it and I'm trying to raise awareness that it's not OK for us drivers.


Great... IMO when you focus on what 'was' or what 'used to be' as the basis of your efforts, you've lost the argument you're trying to make. What matters, IMO is what "is" now - what we want to achieve - and how we can express our concerns to both Uber and the public.


> you write about "who cares" well about every driver except you I guess.


riiiiight....
 
Follow @UberOffTuesdays​


> What if Uber's new business modell was 10% for you and %90 for Uber while you drive your own car.
> You're just helping them to achieve that future milestone.


I wouldn't care if Uber's fees totalled 99% -
*as long as driver's earnings are Fair Compensation - well above the cost of their efforts.*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> But I'm guessing you don't send people job requests they would obviously lose money taking.


My people NEVER lose money on any gig they accept. 
But I also hold them to a very high standard for the quality of work they do. 
If we receive consistent complaints about an individual we don't 'deactivate' them as such - 
but we no longer send them job invites.


----------

