# Surge pricing only legal if drivers get the surge



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.

i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

You must not understand what are these companies biggest expense then.... Good luck in court. Even if you have an attorney to take the case. Then watch them get chewed up and spit out in court. They have 60 more waiting for an appeal.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

WindyCityAnt said:


> You must not understand what are these companies biggest expense then.... Good luck in court. Even if you have an attorney to take the case. Then watch them get chewed up and spit out in court. They have 60 more waiting for an appeal.


Their whole legal standing for surge is to increase driver supply. I understand their biggest expense and I understand the law. Their biggest expense is being dumb with their money.

I've won a big settlement once. I'll win many more. I may choose not to settle and tear the whole thing down.

This garbage is 100% legal fiction.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Their whole legal standing for surge is to increase driver supply. I understand their biggest expense and I understand the law. Their biggest expense is being dumb with their money.
> 
> I've won a big settlement once. I'll win many more. I may choose not to settle and tear the whole thing down.
> 
> This garbage is 100% legal fiction.


You are never gonna win a surge payment with them in court, they will throw data at your argument. Haven't seen a winner yet. Was it worth the $500 settlement that you will fold your hand at? Nope. Then you just made your own attorney P/O for wasting there time.

Keep us posted here. ^^


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

$5k


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Sue happy people are literally comparable to other very bad people. Good luck in life. I know a few of them myself, and they are the most miserable people in general.


----------



## KevinJohnson (Mar 23, 2020)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


Don't bother suing Uber. They will be bankrupt in 12 months.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


I agree. And this is true because of the fiction Uber and Lyft maintain that the passenger is OUR customer, and we are Uber's customer. So anytime the passenger pays surge and Uber/Lyft keep it, WE are the ones paying a radically higher service fee for that trip. So they are directly stealing our earnings through excess service fees. And what is the justification for charging us a low percentage service fee on one trip, but a much higher service fee on another trip? None. What benefit do we receive for the higher service fee costs if our per mile and per minute rate is the same for that trip even though we paid more to get it? None. When you think about it, "surge pricing" really means that WE are paying more to accept trips. And why would that be?


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

The city of Chicago gets 7$ For each p/u and d/o at 2 international airports. Thats enough money to make your head spin alone.

Then it gets better... the city also does this at certain locations, like the arenas, venues, and so many other places.

There is certain roads in the city, that you will never see an address. Blocked by politicians, huge mega intersections creating chaos at its finest! (particually State st, and Lake st) that intersection i have seen people get married at. Its that iconic. 😲 its all theaters and venues. 

Hold on there is more to it...

Increased the service fee across the board for all DT p/o or d/o. Meanwhile the pax have no clue none of that gos to the driver.

Uber and Lyft have zero to do with this. Thats what our city and state will do to you here. 😳


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WindyCityAnt said:


> The city of Chicago gets 7$ For each p/u and d/o at 2 international airports. Thats enough money to make your head spin alone.
> 
> Then it gets better... the city also does this at certain locations, like the arenas, venues, and so many other places.
> 
> ...


Uber and Lyft have everything to do with it. You don't seem to understand how any of this works.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Ok. You are correct! Haven't driven a pax since last march. I do the delivery stuff now. Pandemic. 

But the state has more control of law. 

Whatever they do. The platforms agree of terms like everyone else. Thats the law.


----------



## DudeUbering (Sep 21, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


You are not suing anybody, you have never won anything. Freaking dumb a** driving Uber and posting bull***t between pings..

What fiction is, is the majority of your posts ...

If you are in the PHX area, why would you drive Lyft in the first place? Uber will keep you busy all day or night long.

Tell your imaginary attorney, he is a freaking idiot..


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Demon said:


> Uber and Lyft have everything to do with it. You don't seem to understand how any of this works.


Coming from Florida. Ummmkay? Yea and that deer hit your car also. &#128519;


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

WindyCityAnt said:


> You are never gonna win a surge payment with them in court, they will throw data at your argument. Haven't seen a winner yet. Was it worth the $500 settlement that you will fold your hand at? Nope. Then you just made your own attorney P/O for wasting there time.
> 
> Keep us posted here. ^^


A Human Jury will GUT UBER !

UBER HAS EARNED A LOW LIFE REPUTATION .


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


I agree in theory that it's nothing but unbridled greed by Uber/Lyft. The original premise of Surge was if it's busy, prices increase, more drivers come out and meet the demand.

Now Charlotte Surge and PPZ are Uber/Lyft saying to the rider "it's busy, pay more" but passing little to none (especially in Lyft's case) onto the driver.

Some Uber/Lyft apologists/shills/contrarians for the sake of being contrarian (one already weighed in) will say "you agreed to it to the new TOS by driving, quit complaining" but not everything we agreed to is ultimately found to be legal. A good lawyer could make a case for coercion.

If you really want to gain traction, contact the FTC or maybe CFPB. Explain how riders* are being overcharged.

To make it REALLY effective, make sure to point out how it affects low-income areas and minorities much more than rich areas. Here that's true. "Da hood" Surges much more frequently than other areas.

Proving your damages is another story but that's what you have an ambulance chaser for. There are countless examples on UPNet about Uber/Lyft pocketing Surge.

Likely the lawyer will gets a fat payday and you'll get a voucher for Subway.

Same for the government agencies. You'll get nothing and Uber/Lyft will make campaign contributions errrr pay fines and promise to behave in the future. Still if they were forced to go back to paying Surge Multiplier to drivers I'd be happy to drive again.

If nothing else, if Uber/Lyft have to spend millions on lawyers that works for me.

*Focus on how it affects riders as well. If it's solely about drivers nobody GAF unless there's video of three ****s behaving badly.


----------



## DudeUbering (Sep 21, 2017)

New2This said:


> I agree in theory that it's nothing but unbridled greed by Uber/Lyft. The original premise of Surge was if it's busy, prices increase, more drivers come out and meet the demand.
> 
> Now Charlotte Surge and PPZ are Uber/Lyft saying to the rider "it's busy, pay more" but passing little to none (especially in Lyft's case) onto the driver.
> 
> ...


are you related to the OP? Or just share the same brain?


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


That is definitely our understanding of how surge is suppose to work. They have definitely led us to believe that and continue to let us believe that. However, proving that might be more difficult than not. You better find some saved correspondence where it's been stated by an Uber employee or Uber representative. If not, I cannot imagine this is in writing anywhere nowadays



WindyCityAnt said:


> You are never gonna win a surge payment with them in court, they will throw data at your argument. Haven't seen a winner yet. Was it worth the $500 settlement that you will fold your hand at? Nope. Then you just made your own attorney P/O for wasting there time.
> 
> Keep us posted here. ^^


Wait he's going to piss off the attorney by wasting his time? Isn't it up to the attorney whether to take the case or not and don't they make that decision based on how strong of a case they feel they have? The attorney would have no one to be mad at but himself


New2This said:


> If you really want to gain traction, contact the FTC or maybe CFPB. Explain how riders* are being overcharged.


Overcharged? Compared to what? Uber and Lyft literally set the rates for the trip. By hitting confirm uberX (or whatever platform), they are agreeing to pay that set price. They have the option to not order. no one is forcing them


New2This said:


> To make it REALLY effective, make sure to point out how it affects low-income areas and minorities much more than rich areas. Here that's true. "Da hood" Surges much more frequently than other areas


It surges because demand is actually up in those areas since no one wants to drive there LOL this I'd be careful on. Tomorrow we'll have a new agreement that comes out . . . No Surges for anyone across the board


New2This said:


> Still if they were forced to go back to paying Surge Multiplier to drivers I'd be happy to drive again.


The only way to assure the driver and the company are getting their fair share is, going back to the commission percentage. Otherwise numbers are able to be finagled and moved around, to their benefit of course. They may agree to go back to Surge multiplier but that does nothing by itself. They could be charging a 4x surge and only be paying us a 1.5 surge&#129335;‍♀


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

DudeUbering said:


> are you related to the OP? Or just share the same brain?


I've had similar thoughts but honestly too lazy to try contacting an attorney.



Daisey77 said:


> Overcharged? Compared to what? Uber and Lyft literally set the rates for the trip. By hitting confirm uberX (or whatever platform), they are agreeing to pay that set price. They have the option to not order. no one is forcing them


Overcharged might not be the right word but what do you call it when they're charging riders more under the pretense of supply and demand to get more drivers to their area, then not paying drivers the additional money? Fraud? Bait and switch? Price gouging? Utter bullshit?

Whatever term it's wrong.



Daisey77 said:


> It surges because demand is actually up in those areas since no one wants to drive there LOL this I'd be careful on. Tomorrow we'll have a new agreement that comes out . . . No Surges for anyone across the board


The civil rights/SJWS would rain holy hell on Uber/Lyft if it was phrased as being exploitative of communities of color.

They wouldn't stop Surge entirely because then they'd have no justification for charging more at high demand areas.



Daisey77 said:


> The only way to assure the driver and the company are getting their fair share is, going back to the commission percentage. Otherwise numbers are able to be finagled and moved around, to their benefit of course. They may agree to go back to Surge multiplier but that does nothing by itself. They could be charging a 4x surge and only be paying us a 1.5 surge&#129335;‍♀


I've said this for a long time. If Uber/Lyft didn't get so greedy and had kept things at the original percentage split, they would've saved themselves A LOT of headaches. They wouldn't have had multiple lawsuits and AB5/Prop 22.

But when your companies are run by soulless idiot assholes then you reap what you sow. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


Lol. Didn't you agree to drive for the rates you're getting paid? No where in your ToS does it state you're entitled to more if they charge more. It's a shity thing for lyft to do, but you agreed to the terms.

Last night they were charging pax 3.5- 4.5 times regular price and a gigantic bonus for me of $3.19!
















Meanwhile Uber was plus $10-$40

Uber plus $30 vs lyft us $2.83









Best revenge is to log off.

Lyft so generous 170 guarantee for 20 rides. I don't think I've ever done 20 rides and made less than $200.00.

At least with uber it's a bonus for X rides not a bullshit guarantee that they know they won't have to pay out.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WindyCityAnt said:


> Coming from Florida. Ummmkay? Yea and that deer hit your car also. &#128519;


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

New2This said:


> Overcharged might not be the right word but what do you call it when they're charging riders more under the pretense of supply and demand to get more drivers to their area, then not paying drivers the additional money? Fraud? Bait and switch? Price gouging? Utter bullshit?
> 
> Whatever term it's wrong.


I vote for calling it Utter Bullshit!

I like those new "priority pick up scam"

Charge the pax 40% more or make them wait. Meanwhile, drivers get nothing but pissed off pax because we didn't get them quick enough &#128518;&#128514;

It's almost impressive how scummy lyft has gotten. From the 'driver friendly" company to extortionists in no time.

The make uber look almost ethical!










This is the best way to respond to Lyft's utter bullshit.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> A Human Jury will GUT UBER !
> 
> UBER HAS EARNED A LOW LIFE REPUTATION .
> View attachment 574993
> View attachment 574995


The problem here is. There is no humans to be jurors in a civil case. :}


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Boca Ratman said:


> This is the *SECOND* best way to respond to Lyft's utter bullshit


Close. This is the best way. Don't agree to updated TOS.










**** Lyft.

Haven't driven for Lyft in a LONG time.

Unfortunately I may have to agree to updated TOS in order to access tax information for previous years. Will see if the website has any information.



Boca Ratman said:


> No where in your ToS does it state you're entitled to more if they charge more. It's a shity thing for lyft to do, but you agreed to the terms.


This is the main point.

What's the justification for increasing prices when it's busy? Besides "we feel like it" and "we're hemorrhaging money".


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

New2This said:


> I've said this for a long time. If Uber/Lyft didn't get so greedy and had kept things at the original percentage split, they would've saved themselves A LOT of headaches. They wouldn't have had multiple lawsuits and AB5/Prop 22.


I disagree.

DC and the rest of the US had 75% split and multiplier surges for three years and it failed the vast majority of drivers (98% turnover)

The primary reason for the failure was not knowing the destinations in advance.

As far as multiplier surges are concerned, It's important to remember that by their very nature surges are designed to be exclusionary. Only the most savvy "early birds" to surge zones benefited from the multiplier surges, leaving the vast majority of drivers out in the cold stuck with shitty base rate trips.

The result was that top-notch drivers such as yourself did well while the vast majority of drivers did poorly.

California's new system is vastly better because the drivers are shown the destinations in advance. That's the real game-changer. In addition, the California drivers can set their own surges.

Thanks to the changes brought about due to AB5, a much higher percentage of California drivers will be able to succeed than under the old system.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

New2This said:


> This is the best way. Don't agree to updated TOS.


Nice. Lyft still serves a purpose to me, not much of one but the are useful at times. Specifically, I have to travel 60 miles a few times per month. Its a few miles from an airport. I set uber & lyft destination and almost always catch a ride to the airport. I think I have 2 lyft rides this year that weren't destination trips. One $18 and one 31 dollar ppz bonus or whatever it's called.



New2This said:


> What's the justification for increasing prices when it's busy? Besides "we feel like it" and "we're hemorrhaging money".


Same reason a dog licks themselves.

Because they can!

I'm sure their justification is the same as airlines & hotels for increased prices during busy times. In fact I know Uber, specifically Travis, used the airlines as a comparison to justify surge pricing in the early days.

Don't get me wrong, I want more money, especially when they are charging 4x regular rates and paying me 2.50 more. It's BS.

I think the approach from the drivers side is to demand more transparency, some rides I get fare adjustments equal to 3x regular rates and other times under the same circumstances I get nothing extra. I'm always checking the rider app to see how much uber is quoting and charging. The way we get extra surge pay is so erratic, it's ridiculous. It's almost like gambling, you can educate yourself and change the odds to your favor but it's still not a guarantee. I've gotten pretty good at it, but sometimes I bust. 
I do take less rides than I used to but I make more overall.

Perhaps legislation like in CA is the answer, where there is an actual limit in service fees. I don't think it will be long before Uber stops paying anything extra and shifts to charging more like lyft. From a business standpoint, it just makes sense. 
I hope I'm wrong but I won't be surprised if I'm not.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

There is nothing illegal about Uber/Lyft charging passengers whatever they want and paying drivers only what they agreed to be paid.

Surge isn't just for getting more drivers on the road. When they pay drivers more, that is the reason. But surge is also used so Uber and Lyft make more money off of rides when the market value of rides is higher.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

New2This said:


> Close. This is the best way. Don't agree to updated TOS.
> 
> View attachment 575141
> 
> ...


About a week ago you said the world's gone insane.

Despite Lyft's turmoil, their stock price has gone from $14 months ago to $66 today, surging past Uber in the process.

It looks like you were correct.



Trafficat said:


> There is nothing illegal about Uber/Lyft charging passengers whatever they want and paying drivers only what they agreed to be paid.
> 
> Surge isn't just for getting more drivers on the road. When they pay drivers more, that is the reason. But surge is also used so Uber and Lyft make more money off of rides when the market value of rides is higher.


False advertising is illegal, so is misrepresenting your pricing policies.

For years Uber has stated that surges are needed to "entice" drivers to service high demand areas. Travis himself said on more than one occasion that drivers get the "vast majority" of the surge charges.

When drivers receive little to none of the surge revenue, no "enticement" is taking place.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> False advertising is illegal, so is misrepresenting your pricing policies.
> 
> For years Uber has stated that surges are needed to "entice" drivers to service high demand areas. Travis himself said on more than one occasion that drivers get the "vast majority" of the surge charges.
> 
> When drivers receive little to none of the surge revenue, no "enticement" is taking place.


It was true when he said it, but Travis is not even at the top of Uber anymore. Surge is no longer advertised in that way.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Boca Ratman said:


> I vote for calling it Utter Bullshit!
> 
> I like those new "priority pick up scam"
> 
> ...


Love it. If the passengers wants priority they have to pay more. If the driver wants priority they have to accept less. Win win for Lyft


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> paying drivers only what they agreed to be paid.


Post a screenshot of the contract clause that states that drivers "agree" to a particular "pay rate".

You may have some trouble finding that clause.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Atom guy said:


> Love it. If the passengers wants priority they have to pay more. If the driver wants priority they have to accept less. Win win for Lyft


Right? It's so shady it's almost admirable, almost.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> It was true when he said it, but Travis is not even at the top of Uber anymore. Surge is no longer advertised in that way.


Despite Uber's attempt to make the language more muddy than before, they STILL tell the pax that surges are used to "entice" drivers to busy areas.

Travis was still saying it after the creation of Upfront Pricing.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Post a screenshot of the contract clause that states that drivers "agree" to a particular "pay rate".
> 
> You may have some trouble finding that clause.


Is Uber/Lyft pointing guns at people's heads and forcing them to drive? No? Well then they agreed to drive for the rates they drive for.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> DC and the rest of the US had 75% split and multiplier surges for three years and it failed the vast majority of drivers (98% turnover)
> 
> The primary reason for the failure was not knowing the destinations in advance.


Ok slashing rates was part of their problem too.

If rates were higher with they wouldn't have the issues with turnover.

I remember the days of Boost where it was 2.4X all over the map. IDGAF about where I was going because I was making good money. I was in "da hood" all the time because I made great money there as anywhere else.

As they cut rates and Surge, I became more selective about when and where I drove.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Is driver pointing guns at peope's heads and forcing them to drive?


Yes.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Finally some decent legal minded people in this thread. 👍

How many of these BS same titled threads do we see week after week with zero results for the driver? Its countless!

OP has to much time on there hands. Looking for every corner to cut possible. Let alone have an actual attorney that represents them in a court. 🤔


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Post a screenshot of the contract clause that states that drivers "agree" to a particular "pay rate".
> 
> You may have some trouble finding that clause.


Semantics

We agree to let uber set the rates.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

New2This said:


> Ok slashing rates was part of their problem too.
> 
> If rates were higher with they wouldn't have the issues with turnover.
> 
> ...


Hiding destinations ENABLED Uber to cut the drivers' pay. This is why I said the hiding of destinations is the primary cause of the drivers' failure to succeed at rideshare.

Boosts are different from multiplier surges which is what you discussed in your previous post.

Boosts were not everywhere, they were only used at certain times and at certain places. Minority areas were usually excluded.

You may not have GAF about the racial makeup of the areas you drove but you certainly cared about the earning potential of the areas you worked in.

Not knowing the destinations adversely affects EVERYTHING related to earning.

Being sent to a destination that takes a driver away from surge zones, Boosts, or other lucrative areas costs drivers lots of money in lost earnings.



Boca Ratman said:


> Semantics
> 
> We agree to let uber set the rates.
> 
> ...


The "contracts" are a classic example of a stark naked emperor insisting he's fully clothed.

I've read those clauses many times. No where does it say Uber is paying us. Just the opposite. They say we PAY Uber.

It says the PAX pay us. "Money collected from pax on our behalf", "drivers charge pax a recommended amount", etc.

Uber tries to have it both ways by IMPLYING they pay us while saying that the pax pay us as well.

The contract is a pact of lies and deception.

Perhaps the biggest lie in the contract is Uber's laughable claim that the pax fare amounts are "RECOMMENDED" by Uber.



WindyCityAnt said:


> Finally some decent legal minded people in this thread. &#128077;
> 
> How many of these BS same titled threads do we see week after week with zero results for the driver? Its countless!
> 
> OP has to much time on there hands. Looking for every corner to cut possible. Let alone have an actual attorney that represents them in a court. &#129300;


I'll give you the same advice that your fellow travelers like to give to people like the OP...

No one if forcing you to read this thread, so if the subject matter bothers you, don't read it.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Boosts are different from multiplier surges which is what you discussed in your previous post.
> 
> Boosts were not everywhere, they were only used at certain times and at certain places. Minority areas were usually excluded.
> 
> You may not have GAF about the racial makeup of the areas you drove but you certainly cared about the earning potential of the areas you worked in.


My point about Boost Zones was that when I was making decent money due to Boost IDGAF about destination etc. because it was IMHO worthwhile to drive. I didn't need a strategy.

As Uber changed things I developed strategies to make it worthwhile.

You and I are similar in thinking on this just minor differences. I'm not expressing myself perfectly because I'm multitasking.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

New2This said:


> My point about Boost Zones was that when I was making decent money due to Boost IDGAF about destination etc. because it was IMHO worthwhile to drive. I didn't need a strategy.
> 
> As Uber changed things I developed strategies to make it worthwhile.


As I said, Boosts are limited, which in turn limits their effectiveness for drivers' earnings.

The Boosts have to be high enough for you not to care about destinations, and even then if you were given an opportunity to peak at the destination and discovered that the Boost ride is a one-mile traffic-jammed trip, you'd probably do what most savvy drivers would do and decline that ride and wait for something better.

No matter how you slice it, California's system beats the shit out of the pre Upfront Pricing system.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> No matter how you slice it, California's system beats the shit out of the pre Upfront Pricing system.


On that we agree.

And as has been stated multiple times by both of us, if Uber/Lyft gave destinations that would make us full Independent Contractors.

But that would mean the $2.62 shorties would never get taken. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

New2This said:


> On that we agree.
> 
> And as has been stated multiple times by both of us, if Uber/Lyft gave destinations that would make us full Independent Contractors.
> 
> But that would mean the $2.62 shorties would never get taken. &#129335;‍♂


There wouldn't be any $2.62 shorties because Uber would be forced to pay more to get them accepted. That's the purpose of the Trip Premiums in California.

Short trips that I can complete quickly and pay a reasonable amount are fine with me.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WindyCityAnt said:


> Finally some decent legal minded people in this thread. &#128077;
> 
> How many of these BS same titled threads do we see week after week with zero results for the driver? Its countless!
> 
> OP has to much time on there hands. Looking for every corner to cut possible. Let alone have an actual attorney that represents them in a court. &#129300;


Post the specific law they're breaking.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Boca Ratman said:


> Semantics
> 
> We agree to let uber set the rates.
> 
> ...


Right. We agree to let Uber set the rates the passengers get charged. But they have also taken upon themselves to decide how much they charge us in service fees for each trip. And the service fee percentage varies wildly for no good reason.

Imagine if the credit cards varied the service fee they charge the retailers


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Demon said:


> Post the specific law they're breaking.


Goober or lyft? Haaaaa. Zero. Thats the point!

Every market has its struggles and differences. But i will never sue someone because i fell down, or a deer hitting my car.

Isn't it acceptable to be moral and ethic in life rather than blame every thing on stuff that is useless overall.

Do you understand the word "liability" is all it means at the end of the day.

Guess how much *YOU* have now?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

[


Nats121 said:


> False advertising is illegal, so is misrepresenting your pricing policies.


Neither is happening.



Nats121 said:


> When drivers receive little to none of the surge revenue, no "enticement" is taking place.


Uber still uses surge to entice more drivers. They also use it to increase their revenue. Nowhere was it said Uber will only charge surge to pay drivers more or entice more drivers.

They put a little red cloud for $3.00 up and you can see all the Uber & lyft lights hauling ass towards it.

Last around 1am night, there was a $40 surge, I suspect a little misplaced, on palm beach island in a residential area. Less than a 1/4 mile in distance from downtown were all the clubs are. There seemed to be a glitch last night, where the surge was slightly off, the highest dollar value was 1/4 mile off the busy areas. So, this is a very expensive and exclusive area. Of course I headed out there. I was one of the first to arrive, I saw 5 or 6 cars coming down the street all with lyft amps and an uber beacon or two and some aftermarket Uber lights. The street had maybe 8 or 10 mansions on it, was a dead end and usually quiet as a morgue. (Not far from Epstein's place actually) anyway, on my way back , I saw dozens of cars hauling ass towards the $40, dozens. It was funny, and I laughed at the irony of all these drivers heading out there disturbing these multi millionaires and billionaires for $40. I'll have to get video if it happens again.









Just imaging 30-40 Uber x cars at 1am hauling ass through one of the most exclusive areas in the United States. &#128518;&#129315;&#128514;

I want to believe some programmer at Uber did it on purpose just for shits & grins.



Atom guy said:


> And the service fee percentage varies wildly for no good reason.


There's a good reason, we just don't like it.



Atom guy said:


> And the service fee percentage varies wildly for no good reason.


There's a good reason, we just don't like it.



Atom guy said:


> And the service fee percentage varies wildly for no good reason.


There's a good reason, we just don't like it.



Nats121 said:


> Perhaps the biggest lie in the contract is Uber's laughable claim that the pax fare amounts are "RECOMMENDED" by Uber.


You are allowed, according to the tos, to charge less than their recommended fare. &#128518;&#129315;&#128514;

Look, you're preaching to the choir, I've always said Uber and lyft are shady af. They are multi billion dollar corporations, they are both on the open exchange. They are going to continue to want a bigger slice of the pie. Increasing profits is what drives the stock price higher and the stick holder is ultimately the boss.

Is it shitty that they are so shady to us? I hate it. You hate it. We all hate it. I think you mentioned Lyft's stock earlier, someone did. It's no coincidence that the stock is approaching a record high a few months after cutting our canc fees 60% and the very noticeable charging pax 250% prime time while paying us $3.18 extra. Uber will follow suit soon.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Atom guy said:


> Right. We agree to let Uber set the rates the passengers get charged. But they have also taken upon themselves to decide how much they charge us in service fees for each trip. And the service fee percentage varies wildly for no good reason.
> 
> Imagine if the credit cards varied the service fee they charge the retailers


Retailers would stop doing business with the card, but drivers continue to do business with Uber/Lyft.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> Just imaging 30-40 Uber x cars at 1am hauling ass through one of the most exclusive areas in the United States. &#128518;&#129315;&#128514;
> 
> I want to believe some programmer at Uber did it on purpose just for shits & grins.


"programmer"is just a term they use with gig company's. Clue 1.

They do manually control your earnings online in that "area." Clue 2.

I can look up any areas GCI per community at my will. LA, NY, CHI, have more than palm beach.

Thats a small place in a small area. Ok great. Now make that 90 times the size of it.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WindyCityAnt said:


> Goober or lyft? Haaaaa. Zero. Thats the point!
> 
> Every market has its struggles and differences. But i will never sue someone because i fell down, or a deer hitting my car.
> 
> ...


So what they're doing is legal but you're going to sue them, on what grounds?

you don't understand what liability means.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> [
> 
> Neither is happening.
> 
> ...


Everytime a surge is charged to the pax and nothing is paid to the drivers misrepresentation is taking place. And it happens 24/7.

Uber has been using the "entice the drivers" claim for years. It's a lie.

Uber chose to use the "enticement" lie as a way to avoid appearing as "profiteers" while throwing the drivers under the bus by making it appear that the drivers are the beneficiaries of the higher prices.

It's highly unlikely consumer advocates would take kindly to discovering that the vast majority of the "enticement" money they've been paying is going straight into Uber's banking accounts.

By the way, a business practice doesn't necessarily have to be illegal for the govt to crack down.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Demon said:


> So what they're doing is legal but you're going to sue them, on what grounds?
> 
> you don't understand what liability means.


I am not suing anyone! Look for the OP on that one.

I am not stupid enough. Sorry. 

Now, how much liability do you have for driving for a gig company? &#129300;

You still are unanswered on this subject here. &#129300;


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Everytime a surge is charged to the pax and nothing is paid to the drivers misrepresentation is taking place. And it happens 24/7.


Misrepresentation of what?



Nats121 said:


> Uber has been using the "entice the drivers" claim for years. It's a lie.


You're saying Uber doesn't use the surge to entice the drivers? I can personally attest to the fact you are indeed wrong. I can show you my rides from last night, all of them surged AND, only reason I drove last night.

No where does Uber say there aren't other reason is for the surge. You're making assumptions.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WindyCityAnt said:


> I am not suing anyone! Look for the OP on that one.
> 
> I am not stupid enough. Sorry. :smiles:
> 
> ...


Sorry about that and no liability for me at all.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> It's no coincidence that the stock is approaching a record high a few months after cutting our canc fees 60% and the very noticeable charging pax 250% prime time while paying us $3.18 extra. Uber will follow suit soon.


It's won't continue indefinitely.

Once things get back to normal there's gonna be AB5-type of legislation in several states, and when word gets out that Lyft has been taking advantage of Covid by jacking up prices while paying drivers nothing extra, more momentum for a crackdown will occur.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

You're also using old statements, very old statements. I have not read any comments from Dara regarding surge. Companies change their business plans everyday. They don't have to inform us when they do. 

I hate uber as a company. They continue to nickel and dime us. What was an 80/20 split is now basically a 60/40 split. They cut the rates and cut the rates and when they finally did raise them, they kept all of the increase. It sucks. But I cannot agree that they are misrepresenting the surge or that they dint use it to increase drivers in busy areas. Do they use surge to increase their revenue? Of course. Bit they also use it to get drivers where they need them.

Dynamic pricing is used by all kinds of business. It's nothing new. I remember back in the 80s. Coke a cola had a vending machine that would increase the prices as the outside temperature increased. They said, it cost more to cool the product when it was hotter. Probably true, but the main reason was because they knew people would pay due to being more thirsty in 103° than 75°.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Demon said:


> Sorry about that and no liability for me at all.


You are either not a driver or you do not understand laws then. &#128563;


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Misrepresentation of what?


Going around in circles here. I already stated it.



Boca Ratman said:


> You're saying Uber doesn't use the surge to entice the drivers? I can personally attest to the fact you are indeed wrong. I can show you my rides from last night, all of them surged AND, only reason I drove last night.


This website has zillions of posts and screenshots showing surge prices being charged with little to no extra pay for the drivers.



Boca Ratman said:


> No where does Uber say there aren't other reason is for the surge. You're making assumptions.


The other reasons don't matter in this case.

Uber deliberately misleads pax into believing the drivers are being "enticed" when the truth is that in most cases they are not.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> It's won't continue indefinitely.
> 
> Once things get back to normal there's gonna be AB5-type of legislation in several states, and when word gets out that Lyft has been taking advantage of Covid by jacking up prices while paying drivers nothing extra, more momentum for a crackdown will occur.


I believe there will be more legislation for sure. As far as these companies trying to increase their profits, it has to continue or the companies won't survive. That's the nature of business.

They'll find ways to work around whatever laws are passed whether it's new charges/fees that we don't get a cut of or whatever, they will keep on, they have to.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> You're also using old statements, very old statements. I have not read any comments from Dara regarding surge. Companies change their business plans everyday. They don't have to inform us when they do.


Those statements have been on Uber's website for years.

They didn't have to include the enticement claims at all, they could have said nothing about it, but Uber believed they could benefit by throwing the drivers under the bus and that's what they chose to do, the truth be damned.



Boca Ratman said:


> I believe there will be more legislation for sure. As far as these companies trying to increase their profits, it has to continue or the companies won't survive. That's the nature of business.


They're making plenty of profits on our rides. The big mystery is where do those profits go?


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

WindyCityAnt said:


> You are either not a driver or you do not understand laws then. &#128563;


He's the resident contrarian. He'll argue that water isn't wet just to be obstinate.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Going around in circles here. I already stated it.
> 
> This website has zillions of posts and screenshots showing surge prices being charged with little to no extra pay for the drivers.
> 
> ...


You're basing this on stamens made in the infancy of the company. Plus, at least in my area, uber hasn't been charging pax more without paying us more, at least not very often from what I can tell. When they charge pax more, and it doesn't show on the drivers app, I've been getting paid. In fact, since pre pandemic, these are the rides I specifically look for as they pay better. 
This was showing no surge on the drivers app. I saw on the pax app it was 3 or 4 times reg rate from the area I was in. Minimum fare trip, no sticky showing paid better than 4x a minimum fare. Your area may be different, I don't know. I just know, that almost every time the pax app shows increased prices and the rider app doesn't, I get surge pay. Sometimes, I don't because the pax get charged regular rate. I haven't quite figured how to avoid that yet.
























Lyft, however has been charging pax prime time and paying 0 for at least 2 years, probably longer and they are doing it more often and in larger and larger amounts.

Where you lose me, is in saying that they are obligated to only use surge to entice drivers and they are obligated to pay us give us the majority of surge, I just don't believe that. I want that, but its not a legal obligation of theirs.

I'm in favor of legislation if written for us. However, after CA and hb5/prop22 I think uber & lyft will get ahead of the ball here and have their lobbyists involved in writing the bills. This of course will leave the laws favoring them. Just like the Rideshare law they got enacted here, in fl, in 2015.

We are on the same team here, we just have different options. 
That's okay. I think it's crappy how they operate, but it don't see a legal issue.



Nats121 said:


> They didn't have to include the enticement claims at all,


They did because it was true, and still has some truth to it.



Nats121 said:


> They're making plenty of profits on our rides. The big mystery is where do those profits go?


Yeah, this I agree 100%. Pre pandemic they were doing 5 or 6 million rides per day world wide or something like that.

With that kind of revenue they have to be working hard to lose money. I think my 15 year old son could show a profit with that.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> That is definitely our understanding of how surge is suppose to work. They have definitely led us to believe that and continue to let us believe that. However, proving that might be more difficult than not. You better find some saved correspondence where it's been stated by an Uber employee or Uber representative. If not, I cannot imagine this is in writing anywhere nowadays
> 
> Wait he's going to piss off the attorney by wasting his time? Isn't it up to the attorney whether to take the case or not and don't they make that decision based on how strong of a case they feel they have? The attorney would have no one to be mad at but himself
> 
> ...


Uber has been sued by passengers for surge pricing. It is well documented and set by precedent that Surge pricing is to increase supply. Even Uber's early premise with the surge was that the tip was already included and you didn't need to tip because the surge was the tip. The surge is the driver's we have every legal right to defend it and re-claim it.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

P


nosurgenodrive said:


> Uber has been sued by passengers for surge pricing. It is well documented and set by precedent that Surge pricing is to increase supply. Even Uber 's early premise with the surge was that the chip was already included and you didn't need to tip because the surge was the tip. The surge is the drivers we have every legal right to defend it and re-claim it.


But your completely missing the whole freaking point!

You signed willingly terms of service for the platform per state, and city guidelines.
But keep going. You will be the first!


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


_"The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on"_

???

What law(s) is surge pricing "built on"? Can you name them?

_"Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers"_

That's just what Uberlyft says. They also claim that their booking fees are intended to pay for "industry-leading background checks", insurance etc. This is also hogwash. It doesn't mean that before there were booking fees, the company did not spend on background checks or insurance.

These companies can claim that they spend their revenue on x, y or z but it's not legally binding. They could spend their revenue on hookers and blow if they wanted; that wouldn't mean that drivers would have valid legal ground to sue them. What is legally binding is the signed contract between the company and the driver.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

WindyCityAnt said:


> P
> 
> But your completely missing the whole freaking point!
> 
> ...


Reasonable judges often throw out such TOS and arbitration clauses. Illegal contracts don't hold water in court. Trust me, I know the law very well.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Reasonable judges often throw out such TOS and arbitration clauses. Illegal contracts don't hold water in court. Trust me, I know the law very well.


Exactly my whole point to you! Your miserable, then find ways to screw your neighbor. Thats sick. &#129300;


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Reasonable judges often throw out such TOS and arbitration clauses. Illegal contracts don't hold water in court. Trust me, I know the law very well.


Better than Uber's team of lawyers?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Post a screenshot of the contract clause that states that drivers "agree" to a particular "pay rate".


post a screen shot that drivers are guaranteed to get x percent of the fare 100% of the time.

<gulp>

and, please, exclude Calif. We don't count in this particular debate. Thank you AB5/Prop 22. NY too, right?

End of day Uber et al only must pay what the rate sheet shows regardless how much they charge the pax. One doesn't like that, well they have options.

I say we all strike.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> post a screen shot that drivers are guaranteed to get x percent of the fare 100% of the time.
> 
> <gulp>
> 
> and, please, exclude Calif. We don't count in this particular debate. Thank you AB5/Prop 22.


It's not due to Prop 22 that Uber chose to go back to the revenue split model. Lyft also operates in CA under prop 22, and when faced with AB5 legislation it decided to keep the up front pricing model.

The difference between them is simply that Uber chooses, of its own free will, to use revenue split currently. However, I am very sure that they will go back to up front pricing in CA.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> It's not due to Prop 22 that Uber chose to go back to the revenue split model


correct, it was AB5. Was not out of Uber's kindness. None of the pre-Prop 22 goodies were. They are all designed to make the drivers happy. In that, they succeeded.

I realize once Prop 22 was a passed a bunch here said Uber would begin to 'take' stuff away; I've never subscribed to that wild speculation.

And so far haven't been wrong.

I mean it seems Uber is desperate to get drivers who haven't been online like a year out there with the 5 rides $100 goodie. Not sure they would want to tick drivers off, but I guess we are speaking of Uber who tends to be clueless. BUT BUT BUT they hired an ex Uber critic, so maybe she's had an impact (right, sure she did).


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> They are all designed to make the drivers happy.


They were designed to make legislators happy; to make it seem that Uber drivers were contractors, not employees. Hence giving drivers the ability to set their own prices (Uber's control over the prices charged had been a main argument for those claiming drivers were employees), full disclosure of the details of each job etc.

I don't see any regulatory reason for Uber to keep giving the goodies to its drivers - this certainly has no longer been a factor since Uberlyft purchased the Prop 22 victory.

What I do see now, however, is that Lyft appears to be short of drivers. I have been called to the airport from outside the queue and pax have told me that there were "no cars available" and "thank you so much for picking us up" etc. These effusive thanks have also been expressed by Lyft pax on other rides. So _maybe_ Uber is seeing that giving more to drivers garners more drivers, and for that reason they may experiment with keeping the goodies a little longer. I still think, though, that they will be withdrawn at some point.


----------



## DudeUbering (Sep 21, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Uber has been sued by passengers for surge pricing. It is well documented and set by precedent that Surge pricing is to increase supply. Even Uber's early premise with the surge was that the tip was already included and you didn't need to tip because the surge was the tip. The surge is the driver's we have every legal right to defend it and re-claim it.


god you're an idiot..


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I don't see any regulatory reason for Uber to keep giving the goodies to its drivers -


it's ok, we disagree on that. Goodies will stay, they ain't going anywhere soon.

Lyft? I only know what I read here. Never did them. Never wanted to. Felt they were a lame follower to Uber. Uber and HSD keep me busy, so no need to even look or care.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

New2This said:


> But that would mean the $2.62 shorties would never get taken.


Unfortunately they would! On Doordash we know the exact payout, the amount of miles, and a delivery location on the map. Even with transparency amazingly there are still drivers who willingly take $3 to drive 7 miles! Can't fix stupid. As a group, drivers are by far their own worst enemy.

Uber would just have a weekend incentive to get an extra $12 by completing 24 rides and the blind ants would snatch up those rides to get the bonus! :roflmao:


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Seamus said:


> Even with transparency amazingly there are still drivers who willingly take $3 to drive 7 miles!


Not as many as you think. Plenty of orders are sitting at restaurants with no takers.

If the serious lack of decent offers is any indication, my market is loaded with cherry-picking drivers.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

DudeUbering said:


> god you're an idiot..


https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3adbv/this-case-will-decide-if-ubers-surge-pricing-is-illegal
do some research, phuckface.



TheDoc said:


> What are we talking about here?
> Some real numbers...
> 
> Your idea of big $ may be a XL Chicken sandwich at McDonalds, who knows?


$5k. Another one working.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I don't see any regulatory reason for Uber to keep giving the goodies to its drivers - this certainly has no longer been a factor since Uberlyft purchased the Prop 22 victory.


If Uber wants employee status for California drivers and drivers in the rest of the US they should take away the California goodies, because to do so would make employee status much more likely to occur.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Prop 22 will be overturned by California Supreme Court or state of California will enforce strict IC guidelines.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> post a screen shot that drivers are guaranteed to get x percent of the fare 100% of the time


I never said they were, so what's your point?


SHalester said:


> and, please, exclude Calif. We don't count in this particular debate. Thank you AB5/Prop 22. NY too, right?


Are you sure you're addressing your comments to the right person? I've made it clear that CA is the exception in this surge discussion.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3adbv/this-case-will-decide-if-ubers-surge-pricing-is-illegal
> do some research, phuckface.


You should take your own advice.

&#128518;&#129315;&#128514; this is a pax vs Uber . It's been decided, the pax lost.



nosurgenodrive said:


> $5k.


&#128518;&#129315;&#128514; they paid you to go away.



nosurgenodrive said:


> Uber has been sued by passengers for surge pricing. It is well documented and set by precedent that Surge pricing is to increase supply. Even Uber's early premise with the surge was that the tip was already included and you didn't need to tip because the surge was the tip. The surge is the driver's we have every legal right to defend it and re-claim it.


Wrong. Try again.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> it's ok, we disagree on that. Goodies will stay, they ain't going anywhere soon.
> 
> Lyft? I only know what I read here. Never did them. Never wanted to. Felt they were a lame follower to Uber. Uber and HSD keep me busy, so no need to even look or care.


Time will tell.

Lyft had always been a fill-in for me, playing second fiddle to Uber. But with seemingly many drivers going over to Uber, I have found that Lyft is level with Uber in terms of revenue for me. Last night I earned $125 on Lyft for each $100 on Uber.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> You should take your own advice.
> 
> &#128518;&#129315;&#128514; this is a pax vs Uber . It's been decided, the pax lost.
> 
> ...


I see that reading comprehension isn't your top skill.

The pax ruling reinforces that the surge is based on supply and demand and is for the driver, not for the "technology companies".


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> DC and the rest of the US had 75% split and multiplier surges for three years and it failed the vast majority of drivers (98% turnover)


Where do you get the percentage commission was a failure? Every driver I speak to wants to go back to the old percentage Commission. If it was a failure why would so many drivers want to go back? You're making less now percentage-wise then you were then. Where are you getting the info that was a failure?



Nats121 said:


> As far as multiplier surges are concerned, It's important to remember that by their very nature surges are designed to be exclusionary. Only the most savvy "early birds" to surge zones benefited from the multiplier surges, leaving the vast majority of drivers out in the cold stuck with shitty base rate trips.
> 
> The result was that top-notch drivers such as yourself did well while the vast majority of drivers did poorly.


Wait a minute it's not the top notch driver's fault the other drivers are too lazy to figure out how their City operates. It's not hard to take the time to search local events and event venues. The drivers who did poorly was no one's fault but their own. We aren't operating off the method of everyone gets a ribbon here


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

WindyCityAnt said:


> The city of Chicago gets 7$ For each p/u and d/o at 2 international airports. Thats enough money to make your head spin alone.
> 
> Then it gets better... the city also does this at certain locations, like the arenas, venues, and so many other places.
> 
> ...


That is a poor argument to justify charging the passenger surge and keeping it. The rates should be regulated like taxis. The rate for a ride should be the exact same amount each and every day for every single passenger. It should never fluctuate expect for times of high demand like during rush hour or winter weather. If the passenger is being charged a higher price due to high demand the driver should be compensated for driving during those conditions like during a snow storm.

This whole game of rates changing on the fly and the algorithm charging 2 passengers 2 different rates for taking the same exact trip of time and distance because the algorithm determines one passenger is willing to pay more should be banned. Rates for time and mileage should be posted in the app upfront for passengers just like you see on the side of taxi cabs. If the local municipality is getting a cut then you adjust accordingly and include that fee in the posted rates. No excuses.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> This whole game of rates changing on the fly and the algorithm charging 2 passengers 2 different rates for taking the same exact trip of time and distance because the algorithm determines one passenger is willing to pay more should be banned.


I think if riders truly understood this they'd be very pissed.

I would explain to riders how Upfront Pricing was screwing them and how to counteract it. They were always pissed when they learned it and usually tipped me for the education and workaround.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> That is a poor argument to justify charging the passenger surge and keeping it. The rates should be regulated like taxis. The rate for a ride should be the exact same amount each and every day for every single passenger. It should never fluctuate expect for times of high demand like during rush hour or winter weather. If the passenger is being charged a higher price due to high demand the driver should be compensated for driving during those conditions like during a snow storm.
> 
> This whole game of rates changing on the fly and the algorithm charging 2 passengers 2 different rates for taking the same exact trip of time and distance because the algorithm determines one passenger is willing to pay more should be banned. Rates for time and mileage should be posted in the app upfront for passengers just like you see on the side of taxi cabs. If the local municipality is getting a cut then you adjust accordingly and include that fee in the posted rates. No excuses.


But they signed TOS! Thats a problem in court for people trying to sue over surge pricing. I do agree with what you said above completely. Thus making Ride share a part time gig. No reliability. But need to be flexible if you want to participate to actually make some real coin.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> Where do you get the percentage commission was a failure? Every driver I speak to wants to go back to the old percentage Commission. If it was a failure why would so many drivers want to go back? You're making less now percentage-wise then you were then. Where are you getting the info that was a failure?


Maybe I didn't make my points as clear as I should have.

The current Upfront Pricing business model (scam) we have now (driver pay decoupled from what pax pay and the loss of multiplier surge) is definitely worse than the old system of commission-based driver pay and multiplier surges. I want to be clear on that point.

I should add that there are at least a few longhaulers who claim they make more money having the pay decoupled than having the commission-based system we used to have.

I said in my previous post and I'll repeat it here that not knowing the destinations in advance was and is the cause of the failure.

I also said and I'll repeat it here that the showing of destinations in California is the primary reason why a much higher percentage of California drivers will succeed.

I hope I've made my points clear enough here.



Daisey77 said:


> Wait a minute it's not the top notch driver's fault the other drivers are too lazy to figure out how their City operates. It's not hard to take the time to search local events and event venues. The drivers who did poorly was no one's fault but their own. We aren't operating off the method of everyone gets a ribbon here


You're flatout wrong on this.

As I pointed out in my previous post, surges are by their nature exclusionary. This means only a LIMITED number of drivers(the early birds) will get them before the surge evaporates. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Even if every single Uber driver were magically transformed into top-notch drivers, the vast majority of them would be shut out of surges due to the very high number of drivers. Many surges that previously existed would probably no longer exist at all due to all the additional savvy drivers going to the hot spots.

The more savvy drivers there are the fewer the number of surges.

Surges at massive events such as Cherry Blossom Festivals and some sporting events will usually last longer and thus allow more drivers to benefit, but they're the exceptions rather than the rule.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> I see that reading comprehension isn't your top skill.
> 
> The pax ruling reinforces that the surge is based on supply and demand and is for the driver, not for the "technology companies".


Try again


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The whole legal framework that surge pricing is built on is the principle of supply and demand. Surge and prime time pricing are supposed to increase the supply of drivers, but with both platforms, especially Lyft, taking the surge pricing for themselves, less drivers are driving. Their whole legal standing crumbles when surge pricing is taken from the drivers.
> 
> i have contacted the media and my attorney. I advise all of you do the same. We are going to get a huge settlement check.


If I'm not mistaken you said you successfully sued Uber. Can you post a link to the court case or at the very least post the date and court location of your case?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Are you sure you're addressing your comments to the right person?


very sure. And my first comment you quoted is right on point of this thread.

Somebody/anybody show me where it is stated drivers get a certain percent of the total fare (exclude Calif and NY). I would wait, but it would be a long long long wait.

You get what you agreed to; period¿ Only the pax can whine and cry about what they pay. They DGAS what the driver makes.

and if one is that upset, they have other options, yes?

I mean, isn't it like if you have a W2 job and you are very upset you begin looking for another W2 job? OK, that only works for those who have had a W2 job, I guess....


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> I see that reading comprehension isn't your top skill.
> 
> The pax ruling reinforces that the surge is based on supply and demand and is for the driver, not for the "technology companies".


You dolt.

Admittedly I did not spend much time reading this article and was posting from memory when this originally read about this case TWO YEARS AGO, I am sure I understand it better than you.

A) the pax didn't and wouldn't make a ruling. Thats the job of the judge or arbitrator, it was an arbitrator in this case.

B) The ruling was in favor of Uber and stayed basically that Uber did not conspire to price fix.

C) This case has nothing to do with how uber pays drivers, nothing about this case would affect apply to us being or not being paid surge pricing.

D) Any of the testimony, if it is even applicable and allowed as evidence would only apply to how they did business 6 years ago in 2015! The ruling, 
that Uber's surge pricing was not illegal price fixing would stand and serve as precedence. The testimony would have to be ruled on and proven to be relevant, which it wouldn't.

Before you go on spouting how you know the legal system and call other people's reading comprehension skills into question, have a 5th grader read and explain the article to you.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> You dolt.
> 
> Admittedly I did not spend much time reading this article and was posting from memory when this originally read about this case TWO YEARS AGO, I am sure I understand it better than you.
> 
> ...


But i cant stand your 5+ replies in my inbox all at once on threads. But i agree.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

WindyCityAnt said:


> But i cant stand your 5+ replies in my inbox all at once on threads. But i agree.


Sorry



WindyCityAnt said:


> But i cant stand your 5+ replies in my inbox all at once on threads. But i agree.


I'll work on that



WindyCityAnt said:


> But i cant stand your 5+ replies in my inbox all at once on threads. But i agree.


Is 3 okay? &#128518;&#129315;&#128514;



WindyCityAnt said:


> But i cant stand your 5+ replies in my inbox all at once on threads. But i agree.


Is 3 okay? &#128518;&#129315;&#128514;


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> very sure. And my first comment you quoted is right on point of this thread


I'll repeat what I said previously, which is that I never made the claim that you referenced, thus your comment should be directed at whoever made it, assuming someone actually did.



SHalester said:


> I mean, isn't it like if you have a W2 job and you are very upset you begin looking for another W2 job? OK, that only works for those who have had a W2 job, I guess....


Not necessarily. Ever heard of strikes? There's been a few of those over the years.

Not everyone who's dissatisfied with their jobs chooses to cut and run. Some choose to fight for change, and often times the workers win.

That applies to rideshare. Many drivers such as myself need the flexible hours but dislike how we're treated. Most quit, but some including myself choose to hang in there and fight for change. As California shows, change CAN occur.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> which is that I never made the claim that you referenced,


directly? Maybe not. However, did my reply say you did? Go, Young man and READ it again. Anyway, my question stands as unanswered, but we all know the answer, right? One gets exactly what they agreed to.

Strikes? hahahahaha. If one employee is butthurt over something, there is no option to strike. You find a different job, or quit on the spot. Who mentioned a GROUP of employees being butthurt, not moi?

Calif change? Was NOT due to drivers. It was due to a confused and quite ignorant legislature in So Calif. And now AB5 has been spayed. Or is that neutered?

What does one call it if they feel they are abused, mistreated and again go right back to it over and over? Huh.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> directly? Maybe not. However, did my reply say you did? Go, Young man and READ it again. Anyway, my question stands as unanswered, but we all know the answer, right? One gets exactly what they agreed to.
> 
> Strikes? hahahahaha. If one employee is butthurt over something, there is no option to strike. You find a different job, or quit on the spot. Who mentioned a GROUP of employees being butthurt, not moi?
> 
> ...


The bottom line is you attempted to rebut a challenge I made to another poster to back up a point he made by challenging me to back up a point I didn't make, directly or indirectly.

There's a little more than one dissatisfied driver out there, like literally millions of them given the 98% (most likely higher) turnover rate. The vast majority of them quit, but some choose to fight.



SHalester said:


> Calif change? Was NOT due to drivers. It was due to a confused and quite ignorant legislature in So Calif. And now AB5 has been spayed. Or is that neutered?


Yes it was, more specifically it was due to the squeaky wheel of activist drivers fighting for change.

Driver uprisings in NYC and Seattle finally started to receive belated attention from politicians and the media who discovered that hundreds of thousands of drivers qualified for public assistance despite working 60,70,80, or more hours per week, and that drivers were being unjustly fired on a whim and tossed away like a used Kleenex.

It was only THEN that politicians finally started to act, first in Seattle then in NYC. Then came AB5.

None of the above actions would taken place without the activist drivers.



SHalester said:


> does one call it if they feel they are abused, mistreated and again go right back to it over and over? Huh.


Your attempt to compare dissatisfied drivers with battered wives doesn't wash for reasons I've already stated.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> The bottom line is you attempted to rebut a challenge


I didn't. Only in your mind I did. I asked a reasonable question; that still has not been answered by the the 'crew' who really become upset when they view their ride details. You know exactly which 'crew' you reside in on this issue, right?

Who brought up battered wives? pretty sure I have never posted those words together here....ever. Can you provide a link so I can remember?

what I did mention, several times now, if one is so abused, so hurt, so angry (even way after the fact) why do they go back online the very day or even next hour? Being angry ALL THE TIME, takes a great deal of energy. Wouldn't it be better to quit and find something else? Even if they stick to a side gig, there are a bunch of gigs to choose from If one upsets you so much, bounce to the other ones.

Given you a lot to noodle on (again) try to stay on point and not drift to what wasn't said or implied.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> They could spend their revenue on hookers and blow if they wanted; that wouldn't mean that drivers would have valid legal ground to sue them.


Which Uber did, the Vegas party I believe & in Seoul.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ing-travis-kalanick-went-to-escortkaraoke-bar.

To be fair, I think the cocaine was an individual employee and was terminated, ( probably fired for getting caught not for the purchasing of said substance.)


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Nats121 said:


> DC and the rest of the US had 75% split and multiplier surges for three years and it failed the vast majority of drivers (98% turnover)


Non sequitur; faulty logic. There is no evidence that the high turnover of drivers was due to multiplier surge or the revenue split. It may have been due to other factors.

For me personally, receiving two times or three times the pay on a ride, or more, was a reason to keep doing rideshare, not to leave it.


> The primary reason for the failure was not knowing the destinations in advance.


We can guess at what the reasons are for drivers leaving rideshare. There certainly are many possibles. However, until a reliable exit poll / study is done in this area, we won't know the breakdown of the reasons to quit.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Boca Ratman said:


> Which Uber did, the Vegas party I believe & in Seoul.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ing-travis-kalanick-went-to-escortkaraoke-bar.
> 
> To be fair, I think the cocaine was an individual employee and was terminated, ( probably fired for getting caught not for the purchasing of said substance.)


More likely canned for not sharing. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Non sequitur; faulty logic. There is no evidence that the high turnover of drivers was due to multiplier surge or the revenue split. It may have been due to other factors


Read the ENTIRE post and you'll see that I didn't make that claim. You're taking that segment of my post put of context

My point was that in the absence of knowing destinations in advance, multiplier surge and commission-based pay wasn't enough to prevent a skyhigh turnover and failure rate. They did NOT cause the failure.

I wrote a post today to clarify that point in case my post from yesterday caused any confusion.



The Gift of Fish said:


> We can guess at what the reasons are for drivers leaving rideshare. There certainly are many possibles. However, until a reliable exit poll / study is done in this area, we won't know the breakdown of the reasons to quit.


It's not even debatable that not knowing destinations had cost the drivers BILLIONS of dollars in lost earnings over the years.

Millions of crappy rides have been completed at artificially low rates because the drivers didn't know the destinations. Had they known, they would have either refused the ride outright or demanded more money to accept it.

Millions of rides have subsidized by drivers this way.

@Another Uber Driver infamous trip to the Gaylord Hotel was one of those rides.

The result has been a big win for Uber and the pax and a massive loss for the drivers.

You don't need a Gallup Poll to know that bad pay is the reason most drivers quit.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Had they known, they would have either refused the ride outright or demanded more money to accept it.


If I'm not mistaken, it's illegal for cab drivers in DC to ask pax their destination prior to accepting the fare. @Another Uber Driver is this correct?

If correct, it was/is never going to happen. The last sentence in your second paragraph is the main reason why. I know it's not really related to your point but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I think you're missing a big reason why so many drivers quit, it wasn't the surge, it wasn't the lack of detail of the trip. It was the rate cuts.

This was by design, uber was experimenting & collecting data trying to find the lowest rates we'd (as a collective) would accept and continue to drive. There's an old thread started by an uber operations manager, several years old she/he talked about it in there.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Boca Ratman said:


> If I'm not mistaken, it's illegal for cab drivers in DC to ask pax their destination prior to accepting the fare. @Another Uber Driver is this correct?


This is correct. There were more than a few drivers who broke this rule regullarly. Every once in a while, a driver pulled it on the wrong person and had a complaint filed against him. The adjudicators almost always believed the complainant on this one. The first time, the driver usually got a three hundred dollar fine. If he were hauled in again for it, he got the fine and at least a thirty day sit down.

In the zone days (1931-2008) and when shared riding was permitted, you could ask prospective passengers their destinations after you had taken on your first customer.

Dispatchers were not even supposed to give destinations to drivers, although that one always was honoured more in its breach than its keeping.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Their whole legal standing...


Better call Saul.

What "legal standing" do you have to sue for? You agreed to their terms, and you, by the act of using their app, agree again every single time you log in.

Where does it say in the "contract" that they need to pay you one penny more than you agreed to work for each day?

Don't get me wrong, it sucks the way they've rewritten the terms so as to take away most of the earnings.

But your claim is just nuts. You agreed to arbitration. File a suit, and any judge is going to hold your feet to that line. And arbitrators are typically going to hold to the contract, not award you any significant settlement.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

UberBeemer said:


> Better call Saul.


Whahaha! Like he has any clue of that joke! LOL! Good one beems! &#128077;


----------



## WEY00L (Mar 6, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> This is correct. There were more than a few drivers who broke this rule regullarly. Every once in a while, a driver pulled it on the wrong person and had a complaint filed against him. The adjudicators almost always believed the complainant on this one. The first time, the driver usually got a three hundred dollar fine. If he were hauled in again for it, he got the fine and at least a thirty day sit down.
> 
> In the zone days (1931-2008) and when shared riding was permitted, you could ask prospective passengers their destinations after you had taken on your first customer.
> 
> Dispatchers were not even supposed to give destinations to drivers, although that one always was honoured more in its breach than its keeping.


So how are the Uber drivers in California able to see the destination prior to accepting the ride?

I agree with @UberBeemer,there is zero legal standing for drivers to be paid a set percentage of the fare unless it is in the TOS.
Every time you go to the store there is a clerk ringing up your purchases.
Is the company obligated to pay a percentage of the sale?....N O
If you find a lawyer to take your case you should fire that lawyer for being a mo-ron.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

WEY00L said:


> So how are the Uber drivers in California able to see the destination prior to accepting the ride?


full info pings. Tells us everything we need know. Thank you AB5.

At same time. AR went away (like deleted from view).


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Just like the described. Deliveries we see everything. I am in Illinois. Like UberBeemer. I see all destinations for them. Pax are a NO. You do not see that. So it makes a huge difference.



SHalester said:


> full info pings. Tells us everything we need know. Thank you AB5.
> 
> At same time. AR went away (like deleted from view).


Watch him get a ride to Coachella and stay for 3 days stuck in a desert!


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

WindyCityAnt said:


> Just like the described. Deliveries we see everything. I am in Illinois. Like UberBeemer. I see all destinations for them. Pax are a NO. You do not see that. So it makes a huge difference.


Both UberEats and CA prove that Uber *could* give drivers full trip information (and eliminate a lot of headaches for themselves) if they chose to.



WEY00L said:


> Every time you go to the store there is a clerk ringing up your purchases.
> Is the company obligated to pay a percentage of the sale?....N O


Apples and oranges.

Cashiers are W2 and get a set $ per hour. Drivers are, for now, paid for being productive. If no one comes in the grocery store for 2 hours, they still get paid as much as if it's slammed. If Uber/Lyft are dead for two hours, driver makes $0.00.

Also grocery stores didn't start you out at a percentage commission split then one day change the terms and effectively say 'if you want to keep working it's going to be for less money" with no notice or negotiation.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> If I'm not mistaken, it's illegal for cab drivers in DC to ask pax their destination prior to accepting the fare. @Another Uber Driver is this


We're not taxi drivers and we're paid a helluva lot less that taxi drivers.



Boca Ratman said:


> If correct, it was/is never going to happen. The last sentence in your second paragraph is the main reason why. I know it's not really related to your point but I thought it was worth mentioning.


You're being vague to the point that I have to guess what you're referring to. If you mean receiving destinations in advance, it's been happening in California since last year.

I'm gonna have to guess that the "last sentence in the second paragraph" you're talking about is my response to @The Gift of Fish where I said that had drivers known the destinations of crappy rides they would have either refused to accept the trip or they would have demanded more money to accept then. That's a factual statement.



Boca Ratman said:


> I think you're missing a big reason why so many drivers quit, it wasn't the surge, it wasn't the lack of detail of the trip. It was the rate cuts.


I'm not missing anything. I've said a zillion times including in previous posts on this thread that bad pay is the reason most drivers quit.

I also previously pointed out that the hiding of destinations ENABLED Uber to cut driver pay and get away with it virtually unscathed.

Had the drivers been armed with destination info, the pay cut would have boomeranged disastrously on Uber, putting their very existence in serious jeopardy.


Boca Ratman said:


> This was by design, uber was experimenting & collecting data trying to find the lowest rates we'd (as a collective) would accept and continue to drive. There's an old thread started by an uber operations manager, several years old she/he talked about it in there


I'll add that Uber's "experimenting" with cutting driver pay would have had disastrous consequences for Uber had the drivers been armed with destination info.



SHalester said:


> I didn't. Only in your mind I did. I asked a reasonable question; that still has not been answered by the the 'crew' who really become upset when they view their ride details. You know exactly which 'crew' you reside in on this issue, right?


The ping pong back and forth about the above has gotten tedious, so I'm done arguing about it.



SHalester said:


> Who brought up battered wives? pretty sure I have never posted those words together here....ever. Can you provide a link so I can remember?


C'mon, you know that the image of a battered wife who stays with the abuser is a very common metaphor that's used to describe someone who stays in an abusive relationship of any type, including a worker who continues to work for an abusive boss.


----------



## WEY00L (Mar 6, 2019)

New2This said:


> Both UberEats and CA prove that Uber *could* give drivers full trip information (and eliminate a lot of headaches for themselves) if they chose to.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> ...


The point is drivers are paid per mile and per minute.
The amount the rider pays has nothing to do with driver pay, unless it is in the TOS.
There is nothing illegal about changing the TOS = NO LAWSUIT
Read your TOS if you are unsure of how you are going to get paid.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

WEY00L said:


> The point is drivers are paid per mile and per minute.
> The amount the rider pays has nothing to do with driver pay, unless it is in the TOS.
> There is nothing illegal about changing the TOS = NO LAWSUIT
> Read your TOS if you are unsure of how you are going to get paid.


I understand the TOS perfectly.

The changes they made may be technically legal. They're still shitty. I'd love to see an impartial judge (if one exists) determine whether the way the changes were implemented is really legal. I've seen arguments made that made a certain amount of sense, but I'm not an attorney. And they were made by other Uber drivers so there's that too.&#129335;‍♂

Going back to the point of the thread topic, if riders are being charged Surge in order to entice drivers to work when they otherwise wouldn't (bonus/incentive/whatever you want to call it) and Uber/Lyft aren't giving that money to the drivers, wouldn't that constitute some kind of fraud/deceptive business practice?

What's their justification for increasing prices during high demand? Besides "we want more money because we piss it away on coke and hookers and have burned through almost all the investor money".


----------



## WEY00L (Mar 6, 2019)

New2This said:


> I understand the TOS perfectly.
> 
> The changes they made may be technically legal. They're still shitty. I'd love to see an impartial judge (if one exists) determine whether the way the changes were implemented is really legal. I've seen arguments made that made a certain amount of sense, but I'm not an attorney. And they were made by other Uber drivers so there's that too.&#129335;‍♂
> 
> ...


Technically Legal?
LOL
You are right, you are not an attorney....and neither is the OP....or anyone else who is deluded to think they have a case.

Pay cuts happen in businesses all the time.
Without a union contract your choice is to keep working for less pay or quit.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> C'mon, you know that the image of a battered wife who stays with the abuser


do you have any females in your circle? I'd get it if the answer was no. Nobody would compare THAT to working a gig. Nobody, but you.

You can quit 'a' gig anytime you want. Get a W2 job...anytime with some effort.

Glad you are saying in a round about way 'nuff said'. It won't last until the yet another thread on how evil gigs are for charging the pax and only giving a percent to the driver lands again.

Nuff said, but only for a bit.... :roflmao:


----------



## Dr. Saw Bones (Feb 2, 2021)

nosurgenodrive said:


> $5k


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

WEY00L said:


> Pay cuts happen in businesses all the time.


Pay cuts in business are rare. They happen, but they're rare.

Even more rare is for workers' pay rates to be lower months or years later than they were on day one.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

Thats why you sign up at one app at a time sir. Never running multiple apps. &#129300;

to actually see what happens is totally that!



Nats121 said:


> Pay cuts in business are rare. They happen, but they're rare.
> 
> Even more rare is for workers' pay rates to be lower months or years later than they were on day one.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Pay cuts in business are rare. They happen, but they're rare.
> 
> Even more rare is for workers' pay rates to be lower months or years later than they were on day one.


Not sure where you're getting that from. Pay cuts can take many forms. For example, if an employer terminates one or more workers, then distributes that load onto others, who have to work more to keep up. Suddenly, you could find yourself doing twice the work that you were hired to do. Technically, your pay is the same, but you're doing two jobs.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Not sure where you're getting that from. Pay cuts can take many forms. For example, if an employer terminates one or more workers, then distributes that load onto others, who have to work more to keep up. Suddenly, you could find yourself doing twice the work that you were hired to do. Technically, your pay is the same, but you're doing two jobs.


I'm getting it from being in the business world, knowing many people in the business world, reading, etc.

It's rare for a worker to have a lower pay rate months and years later than they did the day they started at their job. Even most crummy jobs give the workers raises, including most minimum wage jobs.

Your example of a worker doing more work for the same money could be interpreted as a pay cut if you want to, but by the same standard a employer who makes a worker's job easier could be interpreted as giving the worker a raise. I kind of doubt that would get very far with a union during wage negotiations.



SHalester said:


> do you have any females in your circle? I'd get it if the answer was no. Nobody would compare THAT to working a gig. Nobody, but you.
> 
> You can quit 'a' gig anytime you want. Get a W2 job...anytime with some effort.
> 
> ...


You're off your rocker and I'm not gonna argue with you.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> It's rare for a worker to have a lower pay rate months and years later than they did the day they started at their job.


I have two friends who were outstanding at their jobs, who were told they had reached the salary cap for their position. No raises ever again. Combined with inflation, that's a defacto pay cut.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> I have two friends who were outstanding at their jobs, who were told they had reached the salary cap for their position. No raises ever again. Combined with inflation, that's a defacto pay cut.


You're grasping at straws.

As you said, they've received pay INCREASES since they first started, thus your example is not a valid counter-argument to my point that it's rare for a worker to be paid a lower rate months and years later than the day they started the job.

They may be losing buying power but they're NOT taking a pay cut.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> You're off your rocker and I'm not gonna argue with you.


Oh, that won't last long. Really.

You are off your rocker by keeping so much anger inside you when there is an easy fix: get a W2 job and understand the gig stuff ain't for you. It's ok, it's not for everybody.

tata.


----------



## FrenchRidah (Jul 7, 2018)

pax paid $25 he told me


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You're grasping at straws.


No, i am discussing real situations. You're trying to put a box around what you said to protect it from being disputed.

I don't think, in these times, that paycuts of one form or another are uncommon. Trying to limit the parameters just limits the accuracy of the assertion they are rare.

The issue with that is that it masks a problem. See what i am saying?

Literally everyone working uber, lyft, has experienced paycuts. The pandemic has seen millions have to take cuts just to keep jobs.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

FrenchRidah said:


> View attachment 575933
> 
> 
> pax paid $25 he told me


I just got a quick estimate from Lyft for a 10 minute ride in Phoenix and for regular Lyft the estimate was a whopping $30-$35

Uber is charging $11 for the same ride.

Strangely enough, both XL and LUX were a few dollars cheaper.

Contact the media and let them know what's going on in your market.



UberBeemer said:


> No, i am discussing real situations. You're trying to put a box around what you said to protect it from being disputed.
> 
> I don't think, in these times, that paycuts of one form or another are uncommon. Trying to limit the parameters just limits the accuracy of the assertion they are rare.
> 
> ...


There's an international crisis going on. Obviously given these extreme circumstances pay cuts due to massive business losses are to be expected in some cases.

I'm talking about NORMAL circumstances.

I'll say it again, you're grasping at straws.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I


Nats121 said:


> I just got a quick estimate from Lyft for a 10 minute ride in Phoenix and for regular Lyft the estimate was a whopping $28-$32.
> 
> Strangely enough, both XL and LUX were a few dollars cheaper.
> 
> ...


ll say it again, you're trying to insulate your statement from scrutiny. Its just not a realistic assertion, to put the "normal circumstances" condition on it.

Look at anything, pre-covid. You know your own pay was cut as a rideshare driver several times since you and i started driving.

There are many other ways companies, under "normal circumstances", accomplish pay cuts. Another is tge elimination of a position, and the offer to keep someone if they take a new title at a lower salary.

These things have been happening in the business world for several decades.


----------



## FrenchRidah (Jul 7, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> I just got a quick estimate from Lyft for a 10 minute ride in Phoenix and for regular Lyft the estimate was a whopping $30-$35
> 
> Uber is charging $11 for the same ride.
> 
> ...


Yeah, pax wasn't too pleased when he saw what my cut was vs how much Lyft charged him


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

FrenchRidah said:


> Yeah, pax wasn't too pleased when he saw what my cut was vs how much Lyft charged him


Let the media know. The consumer reporters with the local news stations could have a field day with the outrageous spread between what the pax are being charged and the puny payout for the drivers.

You can make this a price-gouging issue.

Don't drive for Lyft.



UberBeemer said:


> I
> 
> ll say it again, you're trying to insulate your statement from scrutiny. Its just not a realistic assertion, to put the "normal circumstances" condition on it.
> 
> ...


I'm not gonna go around and around with this topic. I said pay cuts are rare, which is true.

I also said even more rare is for a worker's pay rate to be lower after months or years of service than it was when they started the job. That it also true. If you don't want accept that then don't.

If you think you can prove both statements to be incorrect then go and try.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Let the media know. The consumer reporters with the local news stations could have a field day with the outrageous spread between what the pax are being charged and the puny payout for the drivers.
> 
> You can make this a price-gouging issue.
> 
> ...


You have already gone round and round. Its what you do when someone points out that your statements aren't the absolute and only truth, Nats.

I can agree, to an extent, with the fact that salaries tend to increase from the point of employment, but not that it is the trend past a certain point.

What's become apparent in my experiences working since the late 1970's, is that people generally can't count on pay rates increasing, or even staying the same. Times change, industries change, companies change.

Its just reality. People just aren't rewarded for loyalty to an employer the way they used to be.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> You have already gone round and round. Its what you do when someone points out that your statements aren't the absolute and only truth, Nats.


You said I'm trying to "insulate" my points from scrutiny which is bullshit. In my previous post I welcomed you to try and prove me wrong. If you present numbers that prove me wrong I'll acknowledge it.

I never said pay cuts don't happen to employees because they do. I said it's rare, or if you prefer, uncommon, or if you prefer, a lot less often than not.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

FrenchRidah said:


> View attachment 575933
> 
> 
> pax paid $25 he told me





FrenchRidah said:


> Yeah, pax wasn't too pleased when he saw what my cut was vs how much Lyft charged him


I have had a number of customers amazed at how little I get from some of these jobs. Of course, few of them tipped to help make up for it

Of course, the Uber Trolls, Uber Boy Scouts and Lyft Camp Fire Girls in this topic will think that this is grand. Further, they are oh-so-happy to sit on their collective high horse and pontificate to us ignorant peons.


----------



## FrenchRidah (Jul 7, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I have had a number of customers amazed at how little I get from some of these jobs. Of course, few of them tipped to help make up for it
> 
> Of course, the Uber Trolls, Uber Boy Scouts and Lyft Camp Fire Girls in this topic will think that this is grand. Further, they are oh-so-happy to sit on their collective high horse and pontificate to us ignorant peons.


Ive heard several times tonight that no Uber drivers were available so they took Lyft, as well as Uber charging way high rates. This is Phoenix, so mega demand, lots of people rely on rideshare with very few drivers. Some said they had to wait 1hr for a Lyft and got charged way extra. So far, I saw very few bonuses so absolutely sure Lyft pockets it all 8 times out of 10.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

FrenchRidah said:


> I saw very few bonuses so absolutely sure Lyft pockets it all 8 times out of 10.


There is a system to getting bonuses out of Gr*yft*. I find that if I decline the first several pings, if I am in a shaded zone, eventually it will start to offer me ride bonuses. If I take several pings, it will start to offer me streak bonuses. If all that I do is take the occasional job, it will not offer me much. The more that you drive for Gr*yft*, the more that it will offer you.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> You're grasping at straws.
> 
> As you said, they've received pay INCREASES since they first started, thus your example is not a valid counter-argument to my point that it's rare for a worker to be paid a lower rate months and years later than the day they started the job.
> 
> They may be losing buying power but they're NOT taking a pay cut.


Have anything to back that up?


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> I'm getting it from being in the business world, knowing many people in the business world, reading, etc.
> 
> It's rare for a worker to have a lower pay rate months and years later than they did the day they started at their job. Even most crummy jobs give the workers raises, including most minimum wage jobs.
> 
> ...


Many of these posters are shills for Lyft and Uber. Best not to even engage with them.


----------



## WEY00L (Mar 6, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Many of these posters are shills for Lyft and Uber. Best not to even engage with them.


I agree.
When you have no argument it is better to call them a shill and not engage them and risk making stupid statements.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Many of these posters are shills for Lyft and Uber. Best not to even engage with them.


Then there are.....................................










We have a few, as well, who fancy themselves a modern day Sokrates. There was a reason that the Athenians "offered" Sokrates a "special cocktail". Sokrates was enough of a fool to drink it.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

FrenchRidah said:


> View attachment 575933
> 
> 
> pax paid $25 he told me


What is your minimum fare amount? Or do you guys not have one?



FrenchRidah said:


> Ive heard several times tonight that no Uber drivers were available so they took Lyft, as well as Uber charging way high rates. This is Phoenix, so mega demand, lots of people rely on rideshare with very few drivers. Some said they had to wait 1hr for a Lyft and got charged way extra. So far, I saw very few bonuses so absolutely sure Lyft pockets it all 8 times out of 10.


Here is the exact opposite. People cannot get Lyft drivers. It's constantly telling them no drivers are available. Uber is a wait but they can get a driver. Meanwhile Lyft is charging considerably more than Uber but not offering any bonus while Uber is quoting less and offering a bonus


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

WindyCityAnt said:


> Sue happy people are literally comparable to other very bad people. Good luck in life. I know a few of them myself, and they are the most miserable people in general.


But are they rich?


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

DDW said:


> But are they rich?


F no they arent. Thats there problem!


----------



## FrenchRidah (Jul 7, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> What is your minimum fare amount? Or do you guys not have one?
> 
> Here is the exact opposite. People cannot get Lyft drivers. It's constantly telling them no drivers are available. Uber is a wait but they can get a driver. Meanwhile Lyft is charging considerably more than Uber but not offering any bonus while Uber is quoting less and offering a bonus


Min fare is $2.62, huge lack of Lyft drivers here as well, seems like a tad more Lyft then Uber but PAX often saying zero Lyfts available and having to wait 1hr+. PAX getting charged much extra, Lyft still paying base rate most of the time. Once in a while a ride bonus pops in, more so during very high demand but Lyft is def gouging PAX and not passing the extra in to the driver. Do they have to, no, but I'd see the huge lack of drivers as a hint as PAX are getting frustrated with waiting, they often try Uber but same thing. This could be rectified by paying drivers better by passing on more of that "extra" they charge PAX and that would solve a lot of the driver shortage.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Many of these posters are shills for Lyft and Uber. Best not to even engage with them.


I have no doubt that there are shills on this website as well as Youtube, Reddit, etc.

But I don't think most of the Uber and Lyft apologists are shills.

I believe most of them are motivated by pure "looking out for number one" 1000% of the time.

They believe they've got a nice thing going and they don't want their little boats getting rocked by "activists". To all the drivers getting screwed by these companies their message is "tough shit, this works for me."

I have no doubt at least some of them are also motivated by right-wing political ideology. To some of them an attack on these gig companies is an attack on capitalism itself, motivated by communist ideology.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

FrenchRidah said:


> Ive heard several times tonight that no Uber drivers were available so they took Lyft, as well as Uber charging way high rates.


Yesterday, on three occasions I used the Lyft and Uber Price Estimators for the same 10 minute ride in Phoenix, and on all three occasions Lyft was charging anywhere from $25-$35.

Uber charged $11 for those same rides.



Daisey77 said:


> What is your minimum fare amount? Or do you guys not have one?


In Phoenix the minimum fare is $2.62


----------



## Merc49 (Apr 30, 2019)

The way we get paid is ridiculous, how do you know what the passenger pays. Think about it, uber sets you up with a person who already knows what they are going to pay in advance, you only see what uber says you will get if you "choose" to drive. The passenger doesn't know or care what you get paid. You just accept it as the way it is. In most courts it would be considered theft and punishable. But since you "agreed" to do the job by accepting the ping, all the legal mumbo jumbo in the world won't stop them. What about tips on the app, they could be stealing those as well, do you ask the rider how much they're going to tip you when they get out, no. And you wouldn't have a clue if they did or didn't, you just get a trip summary that shows the amount uber felt like paying you. Sure you can add up the time and miles but since you will never see what the pax was charged or whether you will see that pax again is amazingly brilliant on ubers end. And they get away with it 24/7. I guess if I could steal millions with a plan like their's for years without getting caught I would too. Just my two cents, or is it one cent for me and one cent for uber.🤔


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Merc49 said:


> most courts it would be considered theft and punishable.


do you still go online anyway? &#129335;‍♂


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

I was recently reading that Walmart charges more for the things they buy than what their purchase price is.
And then they pay the employees less than their profit!


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

wallae said:


> I was recently reading that Walmart charges more for the things they buy than what their purchase price is.
> And then they pay the employees less than their profit!


Key word- employees


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> Key word- employees


So you're saying that if you build houses and hire a roofer you're going to tell him how much the clients are paying for the whole house and pay him a huge percentage 
Or the going rate for roofers


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

wallae said:


> So you're saying that if you build houses and hire a roofer you're going to tell him how much the clients are paying for the whole house and pay him a huge percentage
> Or the going rate for roofers


Hey I'm not saying anything. You said it. I'm just pointing it out. That's all&#128513;


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> Hey I'm not saying anything. You said it. I'm just pointing it out. That's all&#128513;


Then you are saying nothing 
You get the point 
Uber Owes you nothing 
Just pay you the published rate of $.60 a mile and whatever surge there is
Up to you to demand more
My last 500 rides only a dozen non surge rides... and those were only to hit a quest easily

I will not work cheap and anyone who does is a union type scab costing us money


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

wallae said:


> I was recently reading that Walmart charges more for the things they buy than what their purchase price is.
> And then they pay the employees less than their profit!


there is a certain level of sarcasm there. I wonder how many targets this sarcasm missile will miss. :roflmao:


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

wallae said:


> Then you are saying nothing
> You get the point
> Uber Owes you nothing
> Just pay you the published rate of $.60 a mile and whatever surge there is
> ...


Well everyone knows you can't compare employees to 1099 workers. So perhaps... You were the one saying nothing?


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> Well everyone knows you can't compare employees to 1099 workers. So perhaps... You were the one saying nothing?


What exactly are they doing that is illegal ?
You know the pay
You accept the trip


----------

