# a CA judge has stated Uber and lyft may have to pay its drivers like employees



## Lyft4uDC (Jul 28, 2014)

http://blink.htcsense.com/web/articleweb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=35476058

that's the article.


----------



## NightRider (Jul 23, 2014)

I really HATE the way the editors on HTC's Blinkfeed manipulate their story headlines. The keyword that they pretty much left out is MAY, as in they MAY have to pay drivers like employees. 

I fall for it all the time, though.. it's just that their friggin newsfeed is like, always right there on your phone and when you find yourself with a free moment and nothing better to do, you look at your phone and it's so hard not to just scroll through the stories to see what's going on... then you click something intriguing only to find out that the headline totally misrepresented the story, or worse, that the story is completely wrong because their editors were in such a rush to push more items out to our phones... As Homer Simpson would say, D'oh!!


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

NightRider said:


> I really HATE the way the editors on HTC's Blinkfeed manipulate their story headlines. The keyword that they pretty much left out is MAY, as in they MAY have to pay drivers like employees.
> 
> I fall for it all the time, though.. it's just that their friggin newsfeed is like, always right there on your phone and when you find yourself with a free moment and nothing better to do, you look at your phone and it's so hard not to just scroll through the stories to see what's going on... then you click something intriguing only to find out that the headline totally misrepresented the story, or worse, that the story is completely wrong because their editors were in such a rush to push more items out to our phones... As Homer Simpson would say, D'oh!!


HTC? Pretty much all of them these days.


----------



## Lyft4uDC (Jul 28, 2014)

NightRider said:


> I really HATE the way the editors on HTC's Blinkfeed manipulate their story headlines. The keyword that they pretty much left out is MAY, as in they MAY have to pay drivers like employees.
> 
> I fall for it all the time, though.. it's just that their friggin newsfeed is like, always right there on your phone and when you find yourself with a free moment and nothing better to do, you look at your phone and it's so hard not to just scroll through the stories to see what's going on... then you click something intriguing only to find out that the headline totally misrepresented the story, or worse, that the story is completely wrong because their editors were in such a rush to push more items out to our phones... As Homer Simpson would say, D'oh!!


just noticed I too left out the may part.lol. I couldn't think of title for it so I copied pasted since I knew it was a mislead. my bad


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

Update the title for the thread.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Just allowed the case to go forward. No findings yet. My bet is that Uber/Lyft prevail. But ya never know.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

So...still no final ruling.


----------



## Hotep31 (Jan 24, 2015)

Lyft4uDC said:


> http://blink.htcsense.com/web/articleweb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=35476058
> 
> that's the article.


Oh the judges pockets will be lined. and this rubbish with all just be a after thought lol


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Just allowed the case to go forward. No findings yet. My bet is that Uber/Lyft prevail. But ya never know.


There is no chance, under current law, that Uber/Lyft prevail. That's the reason that Uber is raising billions (2.8 Bil in Dec/Jan alone)... they plan to lobby legislators and WRITE the new laws that will govern these industries.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There is no chance, under current law, that Uber/Lyft prevail. That's the reason that Uber is raising billions (2.8 Bil in Dec/Jan alone)... they plan to lobby legislators and WRITE the new laws that will govern these industries.


It's interesting you think that. Why is that?


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There is no chance, under current law, that Uber/Lyft prevail. That's the reason that Uber is raising billions (2.8 Bil in Dec/Jan alone)... they plan to lobby legislators and WRITE the new laws that will govern these industries.


Uner or Lyft writing a law means nothing. I'm surprised you don't know this. Or is it you are just ignoring it for the sake of your argument?


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

By Writing the new laws, and then handing them to legislatures who then Vote them into law. That is how they currently operate legally in so many places. Persuasion of the politicians and the proof on the ground that people love them. Whether they have the clout to change the labor laws has yet to be seen.

We could be treated like restaurant workers who are assumed to be getting 8% on all the gross tabs and taxed on them whether they get them or not. all because the restaurant industry claims you won't have some smiling nice person standing at your table serving you unless they pay them below minimum wage.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> By Writing the new laws, and then handing them to legislatures who then Vote them into law. That is how they currently operate legally in so many places. Persuasion of the politicians and the proof on the ground that people love them. Whether they have the clout to change the labor laws has yet to be seen.
> 
> We could be treated like restaurant workers who are assumed to be getting 8% on all the gross tabs and taxed on them whether they get them or not. all because the restaurant industry claims you won't have some smiling nice person standing at your table serving you unless they pay them below minimum wage.


You should go back and re read my post. Once again...Uber and lyft writing laws means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> It's interesting you think that. Why is that?


Because Labor law (DoL regulations) and tax law (IRS worker classification) are established and very clear. Uber has far more control over drivers than they claim (how much is charged for a ride, tipping, the ability to fire them for not adhering to Uber policy which isn't in driver's interest, etc). This stuff isn't new and until new laws are written, courts have no choice but to rule according to the law.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> Uner or Lyft writing a law means nothing. I'm surprised you don't know this. Or is it you are just ignoring it for the sake of your argument?


I have no idea what you are talking about - and don't think you do either. Lobbyists write legislation - not politicians. What do you think Uber is doing with the $2.6 BILLION in capital it raised in just December and January... paying drivers?


----------



## Oc_DriverX (Apr 29, 2014)

BlkGeep said:


> Update the title for the thread.


I believe that even the author cannot update the title of the thread once it is created.


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

Oc_DriverX said:


> I believe that even the author cannot update the title of the thread once it is created.


I work in facts not beliefs, yes the author can edit the title.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Because Labor law (DoL regulations) and tax law (IRS worker classification) are established and very clear. Uber has far more control over drivers than they claim (how much is charged for a ride, tipping, the ability to fire them for not adhering to Uber policy which isn't in driver's interest, etc). This stuff isn't new and until new laws are written, courts have no choice but to rule according to the law.


That's a broad statement. What part of a contractor relationship do you think they violate?

How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them. How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.

Tipping is irrelevant. They advise both you and the customer that it is not a required part of the transaction but is, of course, allowed.

They don't "fire" or "hire". They either send you available work or they don't at their own discretion. Uber policy is Uber policy. You either accept it or you don't. I haven't heard any policy that violates the relationship (mandatory meetings, telling you what car to own, etc)

I'm not defending Uber, there are predatory companies that abuse contractors, but nothing that you've stated sounds improper.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That's a broad statement. What part of a contractor relationship do you think they violate?
> 
> How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them. How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.
> 
> ...


When Uber was paying the old rates, they were in a much better position to win the argument that drivers are just independent contractors. But with these new rates, they've shot themselves in the foot and could lose this argument as a result.

With these new rates, many drivers are left with a profit after their costs that is less than minimum wage. This math does not require $0.575 per mile costs to produce this result. With $0.65 to $0.80 rates, the math produces this result at even $0.25 to $0.30 per mile costs to the driver.

And because the IRS allows the driver to deduct $0.575 per mile from the revenue they are getting from Ubering, many drivers have ZERO taxable income, which not only means ZERO revenue to government (which judges will BALK at when asked to rule on the issue) it also means these drivers are contributing ZERO to social security. This means if these drivers continue to drive for Uber for years, when they reach social security qualifying age, they will discover they get little to ZERO payout from Social Security because they went years without contributing to it. This will create a huge social/economic issue that government is going to be forced to deal with years from now (and again judges will BALK at Uber creating this issue).

These issues will force judges to interpret law to work against Uber. But if Uber had instead continued to compensate drivers well, by keeping the old rates, Uber could have avoided this.

This is just more evidence that not only is Travis Kalanick NOT suited to be a CEO of a company that deals with 160,000 working people, it's also more evidence that he's just a complete dick in general. He needs to go back to just dealing with network packets, because he has NO clue how to treat people at all!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> When Uber was paying the old rates, they were in a much better position to win the argument that drivers are just independent contractors. But with these new rates, they've shot themselves in the foot and could lose this argument as a result.
> 
> With these new rates, many drivers are left with a profit after their costs that is less than minimum wage. This math does not require $0.575 per mile costs to produce this result. With $0.65 to $0.80 rates, the math produces this result at even $0.25 to $0.30 per mile costs to the driver.
> 
> ...


None of that is based on the laws. Of course, every state is different. Here in Missouri I've seen or heard nothing that violates the contractor relationship.

Judges don't rule based on social security or how much you earn. If you don't like the pay, don't do it. Almost half of all workers pay no federal income tax.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> None of that is based on the laws. Of course, every state is different. Here in Missouri I've seen or heard nothing that violates the contractor relationship.
> 
> Judges don't rule based on social security or how much you earn. If you don't like the pay, don't do it. Almost half of all workers pay no federal income tax.


WTF are you talking about? Judges don't write law, but it is their job to interpret the written laws. If you don't think Uber exploiting 160,000 drivers (and growing) for less than minimum wage compensation doesn't influence their interpretation, then you are just being ignorant. It would be irresponsible of the judges to ignore the social impacts of what Uber is creating with their current model.


----------



## Jared Frasier (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That's a broad statement. What part of a contractor relationship do you think they violate?
> 
> How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them. How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.
> 
> ...


They do fire in the form of telling a driver they're wait-listed.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> None of that is based on the laws. Of course, every state is different. Here in Missouri I've seen or heard nothing that violates the contractor relationship.
> 
> Judges don't rule based on social security or how much you earn. If you don't like the pay, don't do it. Almost half of all workers pay no federal income tax.


But *all* workers pay FICA/Medicare. The Employer pays half and you pay half. As an IC, you pay it *all*. If you have no income, then you pay none. Think that is Hammers point


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> WTF are you talking about? Judges don't write law, but it is their job to interpret the written laws. If you don't think Uber exploiting 160,000 drivers (and growing) for less than minimum wage compensation doesn't influence their interpretation, then you are just being ignorant. It would be irresponsible of the judges to ignore the social impacts of what Uber is creating with their current model.


Judges don't have anything to do with social impact. They enforce the laws as written. If they don't, they get overturned on appeal.

I have been a contractor and also hired contractors most of my life. I'm just saying, i don't see that Uber is voiding the contractual relationship. There are certain things you look for and rate of pay is not one of them.

Do they have mandatory meetings?
Do they have specified working hours?
Do they require uniforms?
Do they prevent you from working for other clients?

There are guidelines.

*Types of Instructions Given*
An employee is generally subject to the business's instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work.


When and where to do the work.
What tools or equipment to use.
What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
Where to purchase supplies and services.
What work must be performed by a specified individual.
What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

One more added to my ignore list.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Jared Frasier said:


> They do fire in the form of telling a driver they're wait-listed.


In a contractual relationship, either party can end the relationship at will within the confines of the contract. As an employer, they may be restricted in how they end a relationship.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> But *all* workers pay FICA/Medicare. The Employer pays half and you pay half. As an IC, you pay it *all*. If you have no income, then you pay none. Think that is Hammers point


What you earn or pay in taxes is irrelevant to a contractual relationship. They will not determine contract or employee based on taxes. There are laws.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

The absolute last thing an Uber driver should want is to be an employee.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them. How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.


But they are just a Technology Platform remember, not a Transportation Company. How can the facilitator set the rates? When you hire someone using HomeAdvisor or one of the sites for finding contractors, they don't set the rate. The contractor they send to your house does then that contractor pays them a fee for the referral. That is a true Independent Contractor relationship. Uber setting the rates tells me how much I can make as an IC which actually makes me an employee.



RamzFanz said:


> Tipping is irrelevant. They advise both you and the customer that it is not a required part of the transaction but is, of course, allowed.


Actually, they tell the passengers that the tip is included so there is no need to tip. Sounds like control over my contractual relationship with my passenger to me.



RamzFanz said:


> They don't "fire" or "hire". They either send you available work or they don't at their own discretion. Uber policy is Uber policy. You either accept it or you don't. I haven't heard any policy that violates the relationship (mandatory meetings, telling you what car to own, etc)


They fire you by deactivating you. And you may never even know what the real reason was. That is where the rating system is flawed. You can follow all of the guidelines Uber sets but still be deactivated for low ratings. And they do in fact tell you what cars are permissible. Has to be 05 or newer (regardless of the fact that '02 may be in better shape than '08), has to have 4 doors etc... In Black, Plus, Select, SUV they are even more specific.

Countless threads in here with plenty of info on all of this. I have no clue if they will prevail in court but it sure is not cut and dried that drivers are not employees.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> The absolute last thing an Uber driver should want is to be an employee.


Yes, that would be terrible. So that we would have to be reimbursed for expenses, have medical insurance, have proper vehicle insurance provided by the company, have taxes paid, make at least minimum wage. It would be ****ing awful.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Yes, that would be terrible. So that we would have to be reimbursed for expenses, have medical insurance, have proper vehicle insurance provided by the company, have taxes paid, make at least minimum wage. It would be ****ing awful.


You would be killing the industry and removing all of the advantages of being a contractor. You really want to be told when you will work, what you will wear, what you will discuss and not discuss, where you will work, be forced to stop at 40 hours, etc?

Not me. No way. I've been a contractor most of my life and will never be an employee again.

If you can't earn a good living, do something else.

They don't need a reason to end the relationship and neither do you. It's an "at will" agreement. If drivers stop driving because the pay is too low, they will be forced to raise the pay. Otherwise, they are paying what drivers will accept.

And yes, they can determine the rates. the rates for the customer and your rates. None of the parties is OBLIGATED to accept the rates. Does the cable company set rates? Yes. Do they hire contractors at set rates? Yes. By the tens of thousands of contractors.

The laws are not clear cut, but I see nothing based on the IRS guidelines that looks like an employee employer relationship.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> And yes, they can determine the rates. the rates for the customer and your rates. None of the parties is OBLIGATED to accept the rates. Does the cable company set rates? Yes. Do they hire contractors at set rates? Yes. By the tens of thousands of contractors.


*Sigh*

The cable company is providing the service to the consumer. They hire Independent Contractors to install, deactivate, bury cable etc... all of which enable the company to provide it's service to the consumer but has nothing to do with the actual service itself. Uber does not provide the customer with the service, *YOU DO*. Uber is setting the price for a service *I PROVIDE.
*
I see by your post about the Driver App that you are not only new to the forum but have never driven a single mile yet. Before you do, you will have to agree to Uber's terms of service. There are other posts in here that have copies of the contract you will have to accept. That contract specifies that you are the service provider, not Uber.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> The cable company is providing the service to the consumer. They hire Independent Contractors to install, deactivate, bury cable etc... all of which enable the company to provide it's service to the consumer but has nothing to do with the actual service itself. Uber does not provide the customer with the service, *YOU DO*. Uber is setting the price for a service *I PROVIDE.
> *
> I see by your post about the Driver App that you are not only new to the forum but have never driven a single mile yet. Before you do, you will have to agree to Uber's terms of service. There are other posts in here that have copies of the contract you will have to accept. That contract specifies that you are the service provider, not Uber.


Well, I guess we will have to wait and see what the courts say. The fact that it is going to court bodes well for Uber because a judgment isn't necessary. If the IRS considered drivers employees, they would simply tell them as much and Uber would be forced to comply or start their own appeals.

If they are forced to employ the drivers, the business model is dead and they just become another taxi company.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about - and don't think you do either. Lobbyists write legislation - not politicians. What do you think Uber is doing with the $2.6 BILLION in capital it raised in just December and January... paying drivers?


It doesn't surprise me that you can't figure it out. Most people can't these days. The reason I phrase the statement the way I do is to see what the respondent comes up with. You came up with the typical answer. Nothing wrong with that. It just again spot lights the problem.

Lobbyist can write bills all day till the end of time. It means nothing. What actually means something is what the politicians know. They know we don't vote and we don't hold them accountable. That simple. All the money in the world is worthless if the people vote. Complain about bought politicians? That solution is easy. And in California it is even more important because we can re call our elected officials. You **** up we can boot you out of office pretty quick.

But we rarely do it because for all the lips service people pay, this forum is an excellent example, we really don't care. We just like to *****.

So yes, I actually know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Jared Frasier (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> In a contractual relationship, either party can end the relationship at will within the confines of the contract. As an employer, they may be restricted in how they end a relationship.


I think when they instruct drivers to tell riders to not tip and that the driver's continued "partnering" is predicated on the opinions of their riders, does connote an employment type of relationship. It's simple math; their business model is the Walmart business model. Find drivers willing to work for less than the avg cabbie and viola, a business.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

I hope the drivers prevail in forcing Uber to pay the full tips and stop saying they are included. Other than that, it's a horrible idea. Who the hell wants to be an employee slave? If so, why not go drive a taxi? I almost suspect the taxi companies are behind this.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Jared Frasier said:


> I think when they instruct drivers to tell riders to not tip and that the driver's continued "partnering" is predicated on the opinions of their riders, does connote an employment type of relationship. It's simple math; their business model is the Walmart business model. Find drivers willing to work for less than the avg cabbie and viola, a business.


They told you to tell riders not to tip? In the video they say you should remind then it's not required but not that you have to remind them.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

@RamzFanz I think once you have driven for a while, your outlook will change but who knows. Drivers are slaves now, the only difference is that many are not even making minimum wage. Whats the difference between an IC Slave and an Employee Slave. Not a lot.

I can do better because the rates here are still half way decent. When Uber cut the rates here my net income dropped from averaging around $19 per hour to around $11 per hour and I got no say in the matter. I have to accept a certain number of requests or I can be deactivated. I have to maintain a certain rating or I can be deactivated. I have to maintain a certain cancellation rate or I can be deactivated. I don't see much Independence there.

There are guys driving for as little as.75 per mile. Factoring in dead miles, there is simply no way to make money driving at that rate. When the guarantees go away, many of these drivers will be forced to quit.

I am assuming you are in St. Louis. When I pull up rates for St. Louis, all they show is UberBlack. That is a totally different situation than UberX if that is where you are driving.

Please read this thread and the links associated with it. Very, Very informative:

https://uberpeople.net/threads/a-mu...hairy-audacious-goal.12890/page-3#post-167180


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Uberdawg said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> The cable company is providing the service to the consumer. They hire Independent Contractors to install, deactivate, bury cable etc... all of which enable the company to provide it's service to the consumer but has nothing to do with the actual service itself. Uber does not provide the customer with the service, *YOU DO*. Uber is setting the price for a service *I PROVIDE.
> *
> I see by your post about the Driver App that you are not only new to the forum but have never driven a single mile yet. Before you do, you will have to agree to Uber's terms of service. There are other posts in here that have copies of the contract you will have to accept. That contract specifies that you are the service provider, not Uber.


EXACTLY!!! If Uber is just in fact selling the use of it's software to drivers in a licensing agreement, then Uber is selling NOTHING to the customers. And this is why the 1099-Ks that are being sent out show 100% of the fare as being the driver's revenue. Thus the Uber fees are just the licensed sale of software, collection services and insurance that Uber is selling to the driver.

If Uber was selling anything to the customer, then Uber could NOT show that sale as driver revenue to the IRS like they do. Uber is not selling anything to the riders. Uber has ZERO customers who are riders. ALL of Uber's customers are the drivers according to how they are reporting the revenue to the IRS.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> EXACTLY!!! If Uber is just in fact selling the use of it's software to drivers in a licensing agreement, then Uber is selling NOTHING to the customers. And this is why the 1099-Ks that are being sent out show 100% of the fare as being the driver's revenue. Thus the Uber fees are just the licensed sale of software, collection services and insurance that Uber is selling to the driver.
> 
> If Uber was selling anything to the customer, then Uber could NOT show that sale as driver revenue to the IRS like they do. Uber is not selling anything to the riders. Uber has ZERO customers who are riders. ALL of Uber's customers are the drivers according to how they are reporting the revenue to the IRS.


That makes more sense then. I didn't look at it that way. The driver should be able to set the rates.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> @RamzFanz Whats the difference between an IC Slave and an Employee Slave. Not a lot.


The difference is if you don't like the rates or conditions, you can go drive for the competition with no repercussions.

I won't drive for pennies. If this can't pay decent, I just won't do it.

I've been a contractor my entire life just about. Prices are driven down by contractors that compete using rates and not skills. I've watched installations that started at $250 get driven down to $40 by the contractors. If the good drivers abandon ship, the rates will rise. Uber can't sell a product no one wants.

If you want to fire a shot across their bow, you arrange a day where the drivers don't log in. You remind them of your value. And you let the press know.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> That's a broad statement. What part of a contractor relationship do you think they violate?


You can read the IRS rules for yourself, *HERE*



> *How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them.*


No, actually it is not - at least not according to your Uber Driver Agreement.

You still do not understand (as most people do not) that Uber SPECIFICALLY says it does not charge the consumer - that YOU, the independent driver 'partner' are the one charging the consumer for the fare and the 'Safe Rider Fee'.

You can read that for yourself, too:

*4.1 Fare
Calculation and Your Payment.*
_You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus mileage and/or time amounts, as detailed for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, and, if applicable.
You:
(i) Appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, Applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; 
and (ii) agree that *payment made by User To Company Shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User To you*. *In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, The Fare Is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-‐arranged Fare Is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount.* You shall always have the right to:

(i) Charge a fare that is less than the pre-‐arranged Fare; or 
(ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the pre-‐arranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare"). Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith. Company agrees to remit to you on at least a weekly basis:
(a) The Fare less the applicable Service Fee;
(b) the Tolls; and 
(c) depending on the region, certain taxes and ancillary fees._​
The part above in bold is, of course, legal maneuvering by Uber in an attempt to demonstrate that driver 'partners' have control over fare pricing. Which is a MAJOR component of determining whether a driver is in fact an independent contractor in reality or just on paper. Since Uber provides NO MEANS for its 'partners' to affect a negotiated fare before the customer calls for a ride, this significant element of the IRS test of worker classification as an 'independent contractor' fails, prima facia. Underscoring Uber's actual control over driver 'partners' is Uber's ADVERTISING and MARKETING to consumers which states that using Uber is a 'cashless' system - but the system provides no means for their independent contractor 'partners' to accept a gratuity (_as negotiated between the driver and the customer_) through the Uber app.



> How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.


And there's the rub - because it is NOT contractual. The PERCENTAGE YOU PAY UBER is contractual - not the fare you charge the consumer. But, please: Shhhhh! That's not what Uber wants you or the consumer to know - even though it's right there in black and white in the Uber Partner Agreement.



> Tipping is irrelevant. They advise both you and the customer that it is not a required part of the transaction but is, of course, allowed.


It may be irrelevant to you - but it's not to the vast majority of drivers. Most if us count on our tips to at least cover the cost of our fuel for the day. Again - this is where Uber tries to demonstrate in writing (for legal purposes, the Partner Agreement) that they do not control gratuities - but their marketing efforts 'CASHLESS SYSTEM' and lack of ability for the consumer to pay a driver 'partner' a gratuity through the app, demonstrate the REALITY that Uber does in fact control both the fare and to a lessor degree, the ability for consumers to pay a gratuity (and remain within the 'CASHLESS SYSTEM' they were sold.



> They don't "fire" or "hire".


You are obviously new and haven't read the countless retellings of drivers who have been de-activated from using the Uber app for trying to exert the rights purportedly provided them in the Uber Partner Agreement. Hiring and/or firing, of course, does not determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. However, firing an independent contractor for trying to enforce the contract they entered into with Uber is a cause for legal action - class action... and Uber is dealing with this in legislatures and courtrooms around the world.



> They either send you available work or they don't at their own discretion. Uber policy is Uber policy. You either accept it or you don't. I haven't heard any policy that violates the relationship (mandatory meetings, telling you what car to own, etc)


Really? You haven't seen their policy that provides for an hourly fare 'guarantee', but REQUIRES you to accept 90% of your 'pings' - even if they are 20 miles away from you? And then down-rates your performance for exercising your contractual right to either accept or decline a ride request? You really do not understand how Uber works - or what your relationship is with Uber and its subsidiaries (Raiser).



> nothing that you've stated sounds improper.


Then you haven't read any of Uber's contracts (consumer or partner) and weighed them against Uber's advertising and marketing. However, many states attorney's general and Judges in Federal Courts are now doing so... and finding exactly what I've described above, to be improper.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> These issues will force judges to interpret law to work against Uber. But if Uber had instead continued to compensate drivers well, by keeping the old rates, Uber could have avoided this.


I appreciate your sentiment, but no; one has nothing to do with the other.
One subject under review by the courts (worker classification) is an IRS issue. Another is Wages and that's a Department of Labor (FLSA) issue - and applies only to 'employees', not independent contractors.

*The courts would first have to rule that drivers are in fact 'employees' before they would ever consider the rate of pay issue.*



> This is just more evidence that not only is Travis Kalanick NOT suited to be a CEO of a company that deals with 160,000 working people, it's also more evidence that he's just a complete dick in general. He needs to go back to just dealing with network packets, because he has NO clue how to treat people at all!


Prior to the company going public, I suspect that TK would likely turn the operations of the company over entirely to a qualified board of directors - and he would fade into the sunset with 30 or 40% of the shares of the company which will by that time be valued at between $60 *B*illion and $80 *B*illion dollars (unless Uber loses some major Federal Court cases before that happens).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Just allowed the case to go forward. No findings yet. My bet is that Uber/Lyft prevail. But ya never know.


The hearing was on the merits of the action - determining if there was enough cause for the case to be considered. If the judges had just said, 'gee - we're not sure, so lets move it forward, that would have been one thing... but that's not what they did. The Judges looked at the prima fascia evidence and basically said 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck'. Based on law and precedent, the worker classification issue is highly likely to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, not the TNCs - unless congress takes legislative action before this reaches the Supreme Court.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

A lot of us may be wrong about Travis and Uber's intentions. If you read the article linked in chi1cabby's news post https://uberpeople.net/threads/a-mus...hairy-audacious-goal.12890/page-3#post-167180 it is pretty clear that driver satisfaction is at the bottom of the list. So it is not that they don't realize they are pissing off drivers, paying insanely low wages etc... *THEY DON'T CARE* They aren't trying to have better anything, the whole thing is about cheaper. And since virtually none of the overhead from operating is theirs, it has to come from drivers. That article is why I can't understand how anyone could consider them a Technology Company. And the guy who wrote it is a Board Member of Uber.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Judges exist to compare what a company says to what a company does.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> Judges exist to compare what a company says to what a company does.


Don't forget the most important part...

How it relates to the applicable laws and how those laws are interpreted.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can read the IRS rules for yourself, *HERE*
> 
> No, actually it is not - at least not according to your Uber Driver Agreement.
> 
> ...


"Negotiation of fare" downward only, is not negotiation.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

@Michael - Cleveland - You make some good points. I clearly see that Uber is not satisfying their drivers and, in the end, that will screw them.

We'll have to wait and see what the courts say. If the drivers prevail and are deemed employees, you're all out of work.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> "Negotiation of fare" downward only, is not negotiation.


Pay close attention to the wording of what is said - and what is not said. While downward fare adjustments is specifically mentioned - up-charging is NOT disallowed - because that kind of *control* would support the argument tat Uber is an employer. In other words, a driver 'partner' has every right to charge whatever they want... but Uber provides no reasonable means for this to take place in their app... and THAT is one of the reasons that will be HEAVILY considered in the worker classification as EMPLOYEE arguments in court. Uber DOES exert control - even though their agreement language states otherwise. Judges don't like deceptive or manipulative agreements - and the legal precedent says that if a contract is written by one party, then when a clause is "ambiguous" [ in general] it should be viewed in favor of the party that did not write the agreement.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

So if a Rider wants to lets say, give me a Tip. But the Rider does not have any cash. I can ask the Rider "would you agree to having me add 10% (or 15%) to the Fare". Rider agrees.

I then send a request to Uber for a Fare Adjustment using Uber approved method for doing this. I tell Uber to adjust the Fare by +15% as requested by the Rider. No mention of Tip of course.

Or the best method might be having the Rider Text me that "Please adjust the Fare by adding an additional 15% to the total". Or something short but appropriate. I would then have it in print and recorded by Uber. I would obviously have to give Uber their split but it would be the old something is better then nothing.

Would this satisfy the Uber Driver/Partner contract?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> A lot of us may be wrong about Travis and Uber's intentions. ... *THEY DON'T CARE* They aren't trying to have better anything, the whole thing is about cheaper.


While I feel like that a lot... I don't really believe that's true. I suspect this company as founded by and is now managed by a whole bunch of rich white guys who simply have no clue - and do not understand the math from the driver's side, and have ZERO clue as to the social factors involved. These are folks (unlike LYFT, I think) that are all about data and numbers - and think that if they can make it work 'on paper', then it must be good for everybody. I also think that a post-IPO Uber will look substantially different than Uber pre-IPO. Right now, the only thing that matters is acquiring riders (getting as many people to open and account) and the cost of those acquisitions.

Again - think about it... Uber is GIVING AWAY $20 & $30 rider credits to anyone who will consider trying the service. Since the average ride is under 5 miles - and the credit has to be used on the first trip, the rider usually wastes that $20/$30 credit on a $6 fare - which Uber has to 80% of to the driver. So *by lowering fares, Uber's marketing costs are reduced*.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

It cracks me up that people actually believe that a billion dollar company doesn't under stand the costs from every angle.

You just have no choice but to question the intelligence and thought process.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> It cracks me up that people actually believe that a billion dollar company doesn't under stand the costs from every angle.


Yes and no... when it comes to money - especially BIG money - even the brightest folks drink their own kool-aid.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SCdave said:


> So if a Rider wants to lets say, give me a Tip. But the Rider does not have any cash. I can ask the Rider "would you agree to having me add 10% (or 15%) to the Fare". Rider agrees. I then send a request to Uber for a Fare Adjustment using Uber approved method for doing this. I tell Uber to adjust the Fare by +15% as requested by the Rider. No mention of Tip of course.


Technically, yes - (and there's no need to NOT mention it's a tip. Tipping IS allowed. )
But good luck-getting a CSR to put that through for you.
A passenger might have better luck sending in a request for a fare Up-Charge (tip)... after-all, it's THEIR fare and none of Uber's business.



> Or the best method might be having the Rider Text me that "Please adjust the Fare by adding an additional 15% to the total". Or something short but appropriate. I would then have it in print and recorded by Uber. *I would obviously have to give Uber their split but it would be the old something is better then nothing*.


Absolutely NOT. If the Up-Charge is designated as a gratuity, there is NOTHING in the driver/'partner' agreement that allows Uber to touch YOUR money... remember, the PAX is giving that gratuity to you... if Uber touched any percent of it they'd lose their argument that drivers are independent contractors!



> Would this satisfy the Uber Driver/Partner contract?


It's just not going to happen that way. It's too much of a pain for drivers and riders.

Oh - and LOSE the notion of tip "%", please...
*15% on a $5 fare is $0.75.*
My lowest tips are a couple of bucks...
and I'll take my $20-$40 tips over a 20% - 40% tip everyday.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Pay close attention to the wording of what is said - and what is not said. While downward fare adjustments is specifically mentioned - up-charging is NOT disallowed - because that kind of *control* would support the argument tat Uber is an employer. In other words, a driver 'partner' has every right to charge whatever they want... but Uber provides no reasonable means for this to take place in their app... and THAT is one of the reasons that will be HEAVILY considered in the worker classification as EMPLOYEE arguments in court. Uber DOES exert control - even though their agreement language states otherwise. Judges don't like deceptive or manipulative agreements - and the legal precedent says that if a contract is written by one party, then when a clause is "ambiguous" [ in general] it should be viewed in favor of the party that did not write the agreement.


I wonder how long before you would be deactivated if you went to a rider and "negotiated" a higher fare than Ubers. May Flies live longer would be my guess.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> While I feel like that a lot... I don't really believe that's true.


Then you are ignoring Travis Kalanick's own words.

He said last year, "The Uber experience is expensive because it's not just the car but the other dude in the car. When there's no other dude in the car, the cost gets cheaper than owning a vehicle."

Drivers are nothing more than "the other dude in the car" to Travis, and he would like to eliminate that dude to make Uber cheaper.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I appreciate your sentiment, but no; one has nothing to do with the other.
> One subject under review by the courts (worker classification) is an IRS issue. Another is Wages and that's a Department of Labor (FLSA) issue - and applies only to 'employees', not independent contractors.
> 
> *The courts would first have to rule that drivers are in fact 'employees' before they would ever consider the rate of pay issue.*
> ...


I'm not saying one has anything to do with the other. I'm saying the judges interpretation of law is going to be influenced by the social issues Uber is creating. They are as a result going to lean harder on Uber as much as the letter of the law allows them to.

If Uber wasn't creating these issues, the judges would probably just let Uber slide through this unblemished.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Then you are ignoring Travis Kalanick's own words.


No I'm not... that's his vision for a more efficient system.
I've never said that TK gives two hoots about drivers... but that's not the point.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> ... judges interpretation of law is going to be influenced by the social issues.


And I'd disagree - being influenced by the social issues is politics and what legislators do - not lifetime appointed federal judges.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> When Uber was paying the old rates, they were in a much better position to win the argument that drivers are just independent contractors. But with these new rates, they've shot themselves in the foot and could lose this argument as a result.
> 
> With these new rates, many drivers are left with a profit after their costs that is less than minimum wage. This math does not require $0.575 per mile costs to produce this result. With $0.65 to $0.80 rates, the math produces this result at even $0.25 to $0.30 per mile costs to the driver.
> 
> ...


I think the other interesting thing to note is the guarantee Uber is now giving.... If this continues for too long, it will really hurt Uber's argument that drivers are independent contractors.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No I'm not... that's his vision for a more efficient system.
> I've never said that TK gives two hoots about drivers... but that's not the point.


If it wouldn't make him a millionaire, Travis wouldn't give too hoots about efficiency either. Let's not act like Travis is the poster boy for Earth Day here. He's Wall Street's wet dream. Nothing more.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And I'd disagree - being influenced by the social issues is politics and what legislators do - not lifetime appointed federal judges.


Then you've been ignoring the judicial system for quite some time now. Most judges toe the line of legislating from the bench as much as they can. Not all. But most.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> I think the other interesting thing to note is the guarantee Uber is now giving.... If this continues for too long, it will really hurt Uber's argument that drivers are independent contractors.


I don't see how: a company can pay a worker (employee or independent) a guarantee, a wage or a bonus as they see fit.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And I'd disagree - being influenced by the social issues is politics and what legislators do - not lifetime appointed federal judges.


Come on Michael. Then why does it matter if judges are appointed by Liberals or Conservatives? That dictates how they interpret the law. Damn near the first thing in news articles is Federal Judge so and so, appointed by X Presient.

Why does everyone wring their hands over the makeup of the Supreme Court?

Politics is alive and well in the Judiciary.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Then you've been ignoring the judicial system for quite some time now. Most judges toe the line of legislating from the bench as much as they can. Not all. But most.


Yeah - you tell me what I've been ignoring, while making declarative statements like "most judges..." without backing that up with a shred of fact or recognizing that "most judges" aren't appointed to the federal bench. ha! Hey, I understand what you're saying - but it's an opinion, (one which on occasion I lean towards - but it's not a fact and is not borne out by facts. Judges make a living making legal judgments. And while everyone is influenced by their own personal views, you'd have a difficult time proving that 'most' federal judges just rule based on popular opinion - or their own personal opinion.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Then why does it matter if judges are appointed by Liberals or Conservatives? That dictates how they interpret the law.


You said it - they have differences of opinion over how to interpret LAW and the Constitution - that's their job. They do not take polls of public opinion to determine law.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't see how: a company can pay a worker (employee or independent) a guarantee, a wage or a bonus as they see fit.


In my opinion, it has to do w/ all the restrictions tied to the bonus and hourly wage. Look up cases discussing the factors a taxing authority uses to determine if an person is an employee v. independent contractor. That might help.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yeah - you tell me what I've been ignoring, while making declarative statements like "most judges..." without backing that up with a shred of fact or recognizing that "most judges" aren't appointed to the federal bench. ha! Hey, I understand what you're saying - but it's an opinion, (one which on occasion I lean towards - but it's not a fact and is not borne out by facts. Judges make a living making legal judgments. And while everyone is influenced by their own personal views, you'd have a difficult time proving that 'most' federal judges just rule based on popular opinion - or their own personal opinion.


The burden is on you to show judicial rulings aren't influenced by the judge's view of social issues. Because it's that human nature that exists in judges that calls for an appeal process, and why 9 Supreme Court judges rarely rule unanimously on anything.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You said it - they have differences of opinion over how to interpret LAW and the Constitution - that's their job. They do not take polls of public opinion to determine law.


Who said anything about polls of public opinion? Now you are grasping at straws to save face here.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes and no... when it comes to money - especially BIG money - even the brightest folks drink their own kool-aid.


Yea...sure they do.

I for one will never let them have that excuse. Way too much analysis going on by very well educated people. They know exactly what they are doing right down to the last penny.

Do a,little,research on the banking and S&L scandals. You might not be shocked by the behavior but you would be impressed by the methods and information they have.

Remember...to say they don't know what they are doing is letting them off the hook.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> The burden is on you to show judicial rulings aren't influenced by the judge's view of social issues. Because it's that human nature that exists in judges that calls for an appeal process, and why 9 Supreme Court judges rarely rule unanimously on anything.


Totally agree. Of course they do. For example, read the recent SC cases on the Affordable Care Act and the dissenting opinions


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Pay close attention to the wording of what is said - and what is not said. While downward fare adjustments is specifically mentioned - up-charging is NOT disallowed - because that kind of *control* would support the argument tat Uber is an employer. In other words, a driver 'partner' has every right to charge whatever they want... but Uber provides no reasonable means for this to take place in their app... and THAT is one of the reasons that will be HEAVILY considered in the worker classification as EMPLOYEE arguments in court. Uber DOES exert control - even though their agreement language states otherwise. Judges don't like deceptive or manipulative agreements - and the legal precedent says that if a contract is written by one party, then when a clause is "ambiguous" [ in general] it should be viewed in favor of the party that did not write the agreement.


Precisely why I pointed that out. If Uber was truly just an app, the fare would be a "suggested fare" and driver would have leeway to lower AND raise fare.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

Elections themselves are Public Opinion Polls. If you want Gay Marriage would you vote Republican or Democrat? If you are a rootin tootin gun shootin red neck, Liberal or Conservative?. One mans Right to Choose is another mans Right to Life. Federal Judges are influenced by Public Opinion. Would you want your your Gay Marriage appeal heard in the 9th Circuit or the 5th? Who gets a Christmas Card from George H.W., Clarence Thomas or David Souter? I think these guys are heavily influenced by their upbringing, past beliefs, location and, yes, political winds.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Who said anything about polls of public opinion? Now you are grasping at straws to save face here.


Ha - yeah... that's what I'm doing, saving face' - saving it from what? I've no idea -
but you go ahead and continue to tell me what I'm doing...
it apparently makes you feel good.

Your words were:


> I'm saying the judges interpretation of law is going to be influenced by the social issues Uber is creating.


I took the liberty of paraphrasing to make a point.
Not my problem if you couldn't take in the way it was written.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Technically, yes - (and there's no need to NOT mention it's a tip. Tipping IS allowed. )
> But good luck-getting a CSR to put that through for you.
> A passenger might have better luck sending in a request for a fare Up-Charge (tip)... after-all, it's THEIR fare and none of Uber's business.
> 
> ...


Really, the question I have is the legality. Does Uber have a choice if the Rider sends in an Up-Fare request?

Does Uber have a choice if the Driver sends in an Up-Fare request and has documentation of the negotiated Fare. Besides a $5 amount like a Tip, there are times where a long distance may provide for a Rider wanting to add $100 (example) for the dead miles for the Driver returning to home city without a fare.

Being deactivated or not is another issue. I'm just curious about the legality and what the obligation Uber has to the Driver?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Precisely why I pointed that out. If Uber was truly just an app, the fare would be a "suggested fare" and driver would have leeway to lower AND raise fare.


But the fare IS just a suggested fare - according to Uber.

_"hey you can leave anytime you want - you know where the door is" they say to them man in a room with no doors._​
Uber wants to be able to argue both sides of the coin to make whatever declaration suits their interest in front of a specific audience (state legislature, court, congress, consumer, driver).

Fortunately, the Supreme Court eats lawyers for lunch who try to argue with forked tongue.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Ha - yeah... that's what I'm doing, saving face' - saving it from what? I've no idea -
> but you go ahead and continue to tell me what I'm doing...
> it apparently makes you feel good.
> 
> ...


Your failed attempt at paraphrasing what I wrote does not reflect negatively on me. You obviously have an agenda here, so go ahead and make flawed paraphrases of other people's posts to make your point and leave me out it.

I have no desire to put you on ignore, as I have enjoyed some of your other posts, but your content isn't worth having to deal with this shit you're pulling on me now. Let it go, or I will put you on ignore.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SCdave said:


> Really, the question I have is the legality. Does Uber have a choice if the Rider sends in an Up-Fare request?


No - they do not have a choice.



> Does Uber have a choice if the Driver sends in an Up-Fare request and has documentation of the negotiated Fare.


No - they do not have a choice.



> Being deactivated or not is another issue. I'm just curious about the legality and what the obligation Uber has to the Driver?


So those are the technically correct answers.

On the practical side, _will a CSR put through any such request?_
You'd have to ask a CSR.
_Would a driver be deactivated for this happening?_
Heck if I know - but I suspect they would if it happened more than once or twice - but I'd just be guessing.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> I'm not saying one has anything to do with the other. I'm saying the judges interpretation of law is going to be influenced by the social issues Uber is creating. They are as a result going to lean harder on Uber as much as the letter of the law allows them to.
> 
> If Uber wasn't creating these issues, the judges would probably just let Uber slide through this unblemished.


The judge is not just going to care ZERO about social issues, he won't even know what they are (as you claim they are).


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> It cracks me up that people actually believe that a billion dollar company doesn't under stand the costs from every angle.
> 
> You just have no choice but to question the intelligence and thought process.


Billion dollar companies are as dumb as dirt. Look at block buster getting owned by startups. Radioshack once owned the electronics market and failed to adapt. they are at %.24 a share and selling to sprint for sprint stores. Kodak, the film giant, closed its eyes to the digital revolution and is barely in business.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

SCdave said:


> So if a Rider wants to lets say, give me a Tip. But the Rider does not have any cash. I can ask the Rider "would you agree to having me add 10% (or 15%) to the Fare". Rider agrees.
> 
> I then send a request to Uber for a Fare Adjustment using Uber approved method for doing this. I tell Uber to adjust the Fare by +15% as requested by the Rider. No mention of Tip of course.
> 
> ...


Get paypal, buy the card swiper for $15, problem solved.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Your failed attempt at paraphrasing what I wrote does not reflect negatively on me. You obviously have an agenda here, so go ahead and make flawed paraphrases of other people's posts to make your point and leave me out it. I have no desire to put you on ignore, as I have enjoyed some of your other posts, but your content isn't worth having to deal with this shit you're pulling on me now. Let it go, or I will put you on ignore.


Oh no - really? I won't have the pleasure of you defining what I mean, what I know and who I am?

While I can guess as to why my paraphrasing your words went over your head, I have no idea why you think I would want anything to reflect negatively on you. I don't know or care about you to be concerned about you way or another. So please - do put me on ignore - because after-all, for you it appears this isn't a place to discuss ideas, but rather a place to try to one-up people and make yourself feel good. Me? I'd rather stick to the ideas and discussion without the belittling you seem bring to every conversation thread.

Off to look for my agenda - I must have left it around here somewhere...


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

I love the ignore feature in this forum.

Yet it's amazing that Uber can't code a tip feature.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The judge is not just going to care ZERO about social issues, he won't even know what they are (as you claim they are).


I'd agree that a judge won't consider popular opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he/she wouldn't know what they are... judges are people too - with family, friends, kids and grandkids. Justice may be blind, but judges aren't!


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Billion dollar companies are as dumb as dirt. Look at block buster getting owned by startups. Radioshack once owned the electronics market and failed to adapt. they are at %.24 a share and selling to sprint for sprint stores. Kodak, the film giant, closed its eyes to the digital revolution and is barely in business.


Yea...sure they are. Dumb as dirt. Just keep telling yourself that.

Speaking of dumb as dirt...what billion dollar company did you start?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> I love the ignore feature in this forum.
> Yet it's amazing that Uber can't code a tip feature.


LOVE IT.
(of course we know there's a difference between not coding a tip feature - and not wanting to code a tip feature... but your point is well taken)


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> Yea...sure they are. Dumb as dirt. Just keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Speaking of dumb as dirt...what billion dollar company did you start?


the problem with billion dollar businesses is they hand management over to uninspired underlings who play CYA all day. I gave you 3 solid example of how wrong they can be even when the rest of the world sees the changes coming.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> the problem with billion dollar businesses is they hand management over to uninspired underlings who play CYA all day. I gave you 3 solid example of how wrong they can be even when the rest of the world sees the changes coming.


A whole 3? Wow. You got me there. 3 out of the only 4 huge companies in the world. Look...I know you want it to be true but it just isn't. But tell ya what...if you think it is then mosey on over to any MBA program and tell them your thoughts. Just post it on YouTube for our entertainment.

So...about that company you have started?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That's a broad statement. What part of a contractor relationship do you think they violate?
> 
> How much they charge for a ride is totally up to them. How much they pay YOU is contractual and can't be lowered without a new agreement.
> 
> ...


Someone posted an email to a driver here where uber told him not to take tips and I believe threatened him. So they are not JUST stating tips are not required.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'd agree that a judge won't consider popular opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he/she wouldn't know what they are... judges are people too - with family, friends, kids and grandkids. Justice may be blind, but judges aren't!


And they may even use Uber .


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> The judge is not just going to care ZERO about social issues, he won't even know what they are (as you claim they are).


Ramz, the judge is a human being. He lives in his community. He knows what the people in his community thinks, hell, he probably thinks like the majority of them. These guys are not above politics. And we are talking about Federal judges because that is where most Uber cases will be, U.S. District Court. But state judges are elected. Just let them get into the fray and it will really get screwed up. Just because these guys have a lifetime appointment doesn't mean they want to please because they may want to move up to the Circuit Court of Appeals or higher.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Yea...sure they are. Dumb as dirt. Just keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Speaking of dumb as dirt...what billion dollar company did you start?


Now big companies can be dumb as dirt. Anyone remember Woolco, Howard Brothers, Woolworths, TG&Y, (and very soon KMart and Sears) all precursors to Wal Mart. Anyone know what Cromix is? A little company called Microsoft blasted their ass. How about Burger Chef? Hello Micky D's. Can barely find a Shakey's but they were the first Pizza Place. Everybody knows Sonic now but who remembers Hoppers? Stuckeys? Dead companies litter the landscape. Kodak, Tandy, Pan Am, Hertz, FTD, Rexall, Piccadilly, MySpace and on and on and on.....

Uber is going cheap. My contention is that their customers never started using Uber because it was cheap. It was faster, better and cashless. IMO, Lyft shouldn't compete on price. Be better, higher quality, a little more expensive. Be Costco to Sams. You may never be as big but you will sure as hell generate returns to shareholders.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Judges don't have anything to do with social impact. They enforce the laws as written. If they don't, they get overturned on appeal.
> 
> I have been a contractor and also hired contractors most of my life. I'm just saying, i don't see that Uber is voiding the contractual relationship. There are certain things you look for and rate of pay is not one of them.
> 
> ...


I am told I have to use MY car. That is my equipment.
I can't subcontract do I can't hire workers.
I have to do the work. Not someone else.
If I don't follow their route I nay not be paid which is tied into sequence and order.

Seems they're already fulfilling much of what you have listed above that ties into being an employer.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Get paypal, buy the card swiper for $15, problem solved.


I get it and even agree that this is a viable method = Square or PayPal card swipers or PayPal can even get payment from Pax just by the driver having an account and emailing the Pax (a bit cumbersome since the payee has to fill in a long form but doable).

What I wanted to know, is is the legality or the obligation of Uber as the 3rd Party Network Company for the Driver (the transportation provider) as far as an Up-Fare either initiated by the Driver or the Rider.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> A whole 3? Wow. You got me there. 3 out of the only 4 huge companies in the world. Look...I know you want it to be true but it just isn't. But tell ya what...if you think it is then mosey on over to any MBA program and tell them your thoughts. Just post it on YouTube for our entertainment.
> 
> So...about that company you have started?


I'm semi-retired at 50. I'm looking at Uber because I like the extra cash for family vacations. Unfortunately, it doesn't look worthwhile.

You can think what you want. Go look at Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, and tell me they're intelligent. Ever hear of Pets.com? Woolworths? Indymac? Sharper Image? Skymall? Chevrolet?

All companies that couldn't adapt or thought they were smarter than everyone else. Want more?


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Chevrolet?


Not a good example. Oldsmobile instead.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Ramz, the judge is a human being. He lives in his community. He knows what the people in his community thinks, hell, he probably thinks like the majority of them. These guys are not above politics. And we are talking about Federal judges because that is where most Uber cases will be, U.S. District Court. But state judges are elected. Just let them get into the fray and it will really get screwed up. Just because these guys have a lifetime appointment doesn't mean they want to please because they may want to move up to the Circuit Court of Appeals or higher.


If it's in California, I completely believe a judge can be influenced to legislate from the bench. I believe the district court that would hear the appeal would be the 9th district, also prone to legislate. However, that is also why they are the most overturned district court, ever.

This decision may be a decade away and uber will have an army of lawyers. I wouldn't pin any hopes on seeing this win EXCEPT it may force Uber to include tips in their app or at least stop discouraging them.

Besides, you will all be out of jobs if the drivers win completely. This business model can't work with employees.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Not a good example. Oldsmobile instead.


Ah, I meant chrysler.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Besides, you will all be out of jobs if the drivers win completely. This business model can't work with employees.


Okay by me. I don't need the job. I just don't want Travis et al, getting rich off the backs of drivers. No Drivers, No Company.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Now big companies can be dumb as dirt. Anyone remember Woolco, Howard Brothers, Woolworths, TG&Y, (and very soon KMart and Sears) all precursors to Wal Mart. Anyone know what Cromix is? A little company called Microsoft blasted their ass. How about Burger Chef? Hello Micky D's. Can barely find a Shakey's but they were the first Pizza Place. Everybody knows Sonic now but who remembers Hoppers? Stuckeys? Dead companies litter the landscape. Kodak, Tandy, Pan Am, Hertz, FTD, Rexall, Piccadilly, MySpace and on and on and on.....
> 
> Uber is going cheap. My contention is that their customers never started using Uber because it was cheap. It was faster, better and cashless. IMO, Lyft shouldn't compete on price. Be better, higher quality, a little more expensive. Be Costco to Sams. You may never be as big but you will sure as hell generate returns to shareholders.


Exactly. At some point someone will have to differentiate themselves with something other than price. Companies are so greedy and dependent on impressing investors / stock holders they just get stupid.

A company that had the very cleanest cars (clean, not new and impressive so much) and the best vetted drivers, serious background checks, could easily charge more and get it. "Safecar" or some such. This market is wide open for a competitor that appreciates its driver. It wouldn't even have to be expensive to ride because the bar is so low. Steal all the good drivers and leave Uber as the ghetto service.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

SCdave said:


> I get it and even agree that this is a viable method = Square or PayPal card swipers or PayPal can even get payment from Pax just by the driver having an account and emailing the Pax (a bit cumbersome since the payee has to fill in a long form but doable).
> 
> What I wanted to know, is is the legality or the obligation of Uber as the 3rd Party Network Company for the Driver (the transportation provider) as far as an Up-Fare either initiated by the Driver or the Rider.


They would probably do it. Just be prepared for the Deactivation E Mail soon after. They allow you to negotiate a different fare but as anal as these guys are about tips, try and get away with a "I negotiated a $20 higher fare with my rider, so charge them".
You got some big cahones if you try that.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> Okay by me. I don't need the job. I just don't want Travis et al, getting rich off the backs of drivers. No Drivers, No Company.


No contractors, no company. If they are forced to go employee, it's just a new taxi company and the business model is dead. It would be MUCH cooler if Uber and Lyft find themselves having to pay drivers and (for Uber) allow tipping through the app. It doesn't hurt their cashless transaction model at all.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

observer said:


> "Negotiation of fare" downward only, is not negotiation.


Yes I read that when I started and wondered exactly when I would do that. And even if I wanted to (could I choose to do free rides during guarantee time perhaps?) How would I do that?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I am told I have to use MY car. That is my equipment.
> I can't subcontract do I can't hire workers.
> I have to do the work. Not someone else.
> If I don't follow their route I nay not be paid which is tied into sequence and order.
> ...


Maybe. I'm a noob going off what I have read. I see you said you can't subcontract and that's generally not an acceptable rule. Usually you can but they can also regulate what the subcontractor must provide like workman's comp insurance. However, there are no set in stone rules. It's a case by case. What is never allowed in one industry can be always allowed in another.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Yes I read that when I started and wondered exactly when I would do that. And even if I wanted to (could I choose to do free rides during guarantee time perhaps?) How would I do that?


THAT is a smart idea. You're going to miss a guarantee, pick up anyone for free.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Get paypal, buy the card swiper for $15, problem solved.


You can get square for free. PAY Small % ONLY IF used.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Maybe. I'm a noob going off what I have read. I see you said you can't subcontract and that's generally not an acceptable rule. Usually you can but they can also regulate what the subcontractor must provide like workman's comp insurance. However, there are no set in stone rules. It's a case by case. What is never allowed in one industry can be always allowed in another.


So you gave a list of things that are part of the employee vs. Subcontractor test and now you're arguing they don't always count. My contract specifically wants me in my car. I have done a LOT of subcontract delivery in the past I was ALWAYS able to hire another person to fill in for me at a rate determined between us.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> They would probably do it. Just be prepared for the Deactivation E Mail soon after. They allow you to negotiate a different fare but as anal as these guys are about tips, try and get away with a "I negotiated a $20 higher fare with my rider, so charge them".
> You got some big cahones if you try that.


I asked about selling because I know that's where the meat is in contracting. If someone wants to sell a product or receive a tip by whatever means, there is nothing Uber can legally do. They CAN prevent you from competing with them, like saying next ride just call me direct, but they can't tell you what other services you could provide. Back in the heyday of satellite systems, I had 22 contractors and they made more on upsales than on the work. I stocked their trucks for them and taught them how. The companies tried to stop it, weakly, and then just shut up.

The real question is does Uber make a big deal out of it. They may be wrong, but that doesn't stop these companies from trying.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> You can get square for free. PAY Small % ONLY IF used.


There's no need for ongoing fees other than the normal CC processing fees. You just pay $15 for the device.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> THAT is a smart idea. You're going to miss a guarantee, pick up anyone for free.


The guarantee says accept 90%, be online 50 mins/hr and complete 1 ride/ hr. Just wondering: legally could I tell uber I negotiated a cheaper rate? Say $1 per ride regardless of distance? They'd get their safe rider fee and I should make the guarantee either way. Is there a loophole I'm missing?

Other than being deactivated I mean?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So you gave a list of things that are part of the employee vs. Subcontractor test and now you're arguing they don't always count. My contract specifically wants me in my car. I have done a LOT of subcontract delivery in the past I was ALWAYS able to hire another person to fill in for me at a rate determined between us.


Yes I gave a list of guidelines as published by the IRS and, no, they are not set in stone. I agreed with you that disallowing subcontracting is a red flag. However, every situation is different and this is an untested model thus far. Do they have a compelling and reasonable purpose such as safety for the passenger? We shall see.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I asked about selling because I know that's where the meat is in contracting. If someone wants to sell a product or receive a tip by whatever means, there is nothing Uber can legally do. They CAN prevent you from competing with them, like saying next ride just call me direct, but they can't tell you what other services you could provide. Back in the heyday of satellite systems, I had 22 contractors and they made more on upsales than on the work. I stocked their trucks for them and taught them how. The companies tried to stop it, weakly, and then just shut up.
> 
> The real question is does Uber make a big deal out of it. They may be wrong, but that doesn't stop these companies from trying.


I have private clients that I met through Uber that I now handle off app all the time. They want the flexibility to call me and say we are going here at 6:00 on Saturday and need to picked up at 12. I meet them, take them, run Uber app till 11:00, log off, pick them up at 12 and turn on Uber app after I drop them off. They don't want to use Uber and have some jack off in a 05 Altima pick them up. They know me, know my vehicle. They pay *a lot* more than Uber price but they know exactly what they are getting. I am an Independent Contractor. Uber can't stop that at all.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The guarantee says accept 90%, be online 50 mins/hr and complete 1 ride/ hr. Just wondering: legally could I tell uber I negotiated a cheaper rate? Say $1 per ride regardless of distance? They'd get their safe rider fee and I should make the guarantee either way. Is there a loophole I'm missing?
> 
> Other than being deactivated I mean?


It's an interesting idea, that's for sure. You are allowed to negotiate a lower fee and, if they have no clause in the guarantee, it sure could work. Especially if you only use it in emergencies. You would have to have the confidence of the passenger that they would be reimbursed I suspect.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> I have private clients that I met through Uber that I now handle off app all the time. They want the flexibility to call me and say we are going here at 6:00 on Saturday and need to picked up at 12. I meet them, take them, run Uber app till 11:00, log off, pick them up at 12 and turn on Uber app after I drop them off. They don't want to use Uber and have some jack off in a 05 Altima pick them up. They know me, know my vehicle. They pay *a lot* more than Uber price but they know exactly what they are getting. I am an Independent Contractor. Uber can't stop that at all.


While I think that is exactly what you should do, they CAN legally prevent you from harvesting their clients in a competing service. Will they ever know? Na. But you are technically incorrect. If you MEET a client through their service, they can absolutely restrict you and even sue for compensation.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> I have private clients that I met through Uber that I now handle off app all the time. They want the flexibility to call me and say we are going here at 6:00 on Saturday and need to picked up at 12. I meet them, take them, run Uber app till 11:00, log off, pick them up at 12 and turn on Uber app after I drop them off. They don't want to use Uber and have some jack off in a 05 Altima pick them up. They know me, know my vehicle. They pay *a lot* more than Uber price but they know exactly what they are getting. I am an Independent Contractor. Uber can't stop that at all.


You know what? I'm dead wrong. They say that they are YOUR client and you just used their platform, so yes, you are correct. My bad.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> There's no need for ongoing fees other than the normal CC processing fees. You just pay $15 for the device.





RamzFanz said:


> It's an interesting idea, that's for sure. You are allowed to negotiate a lower fee and, if they have no clause in the guarantee, it sure could work. Especially if you only use it in emergencies. You would have to have the confidence of the passenger that they would be reimbursed I suspect.


Well the rider would be a friend used only to get the guarantee if I needed a completed ride. Or just explain to the rider your intention but that it might not work. For those who want to up their ratings by having friends "ride" and 5 star them it would be cheaper for that too.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well the rider would be a friend used only to get the guarantee if I needed a completed ride. Or just explain to the rider your intention but that it might not work. For those who want to up their ratings by having friends "ride" and 5 star them it would be cheaper for that too.


No shit... nice. Then the question becomes how would Uber react but if this was rare, I doubt they would even notice. You are allowed to lower a fare right in the app (which I don't have yet) as I understand it.


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

*THAT IS WHAT IS MOST SCREWED UP ABOUT THIS COMPANY. WE SPEND HALF OUR TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO SCREW US AND THE OTHER HALF IS SPENT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SCREW THEM. ACTUALLY, THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A PARTNERSHIP.*


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> No shit... nice. Then the question becomes how would Uber react but if this was rare, I doubt they would even notice. You are allowed to lower a fare right in the app (which I don't have yet) as I understand it.


I know of no way to adjust a fare other than emailing them.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I know of no way to adjust a fare other than emailing them.


I'm going off the training videos. I don't know either.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> *THAT IS WHAT IS MOST SCREWED UP ABOUT THIS COMPANY. WE SPEND HALF OUR TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO SCREW US AND THE OTHER HALF IS SPENT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SCREW THEM. ACTUALLY, THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A PARTNERSHIP.*


That's every partnership I've ever been in!

Seriously, if they were reasonable, far more drivers would treat them with respect. I don't even drive for them and I see the writing on the wall. You can't screw your contractors and expect to keep good contractors. Never happens.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Get paypal, buy the card swiper for $15, problem solved.


Funny you should mention that... I added a swiper to my PayPal business account just yesterday.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Someone posted an email to a driver here where uber told him not to take tips and I believe threatened him. So they are not JUST stating tips are not required.


Keep in mind that each market has it's own group of market managers and CSRs... sometimes people go off the reservation - especially when a company is so new and has grown so quickly. I wouldn't take that one seriously flawed email as being indicative of corporate policy (and, no I 'm not saying that corporate policy encourages or facilitates tipping in any way).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Maybe. I'm a noob going off what I have read. I see you said you can't subcontract and that's generally not an acceptable rule. Usually you can but they can also regulate what the subcontractor must provide like workman's comp insurance. However, there are no set in stone rules. It's a case by case. What is never allowed in one industry can be always allowed in another.


No, FuzzyElvis is right - part of the IRS definition of an Independent Contractor means that the employer/company provides the IC with a task(s) and specs - they agree on a price - and the IC delivers the end result having the "majority of control" over how, when, where and by whom the work is completed. The issue of control of all of those factors is how the IRS applies their 'test' to determine worker classification.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Funny you should mention that... I added a swiper to my PayPal business account just yesterday.


How could someone not? I'm shocked that people here aren't working the margins. I don't need the money to be fine, I want the money for doing other shit like upgraded vacations, so I'm surprised people aren't working their opportunities when they are dependent on the income.

Hey, drunk, want a burrito and/or a cold beer (legal in the US accept for in slave states), just tip me my suggested tip and it's yours. What do drunks want? Food, booze, condoms. The three "I will so pay extra for that because I want it right now and I'm drunk" commodities. Know your customer.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm semi-retired at 50. I'm looking at Uber because I like the extra cash for family vacations. Unfortunately, it doesn't look worthwhile.
> 
> You can think what you want. Go look at Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, and tell me they're intelligent. Ever hear of Pets.com? Woolworths? Indymac? Sharper Image? Skymall? Chevrolet?
> 
> All companies that couldn't adapt or thought they were smarter than everyone else. Want more?


Every one of the companies you mentioned made a shit load of money. In addition the people running them made a shit load of money. They didn't lose much of anything.

Companies come and go but to think they are dumb as dirt when they generate more in a day in most cases than you will over your lifetime....yea...dumb as dirt.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, FuzzyElvis is right - part of the IRS definition of an Independent Contractor means that the employer/company provides the IC with a task(s) and specs - they agree on a price - and the IC delivers the end result having the "majority of control" over how, when, where and by whom the work is completed. The issue of control of all of those factors is how the IRS applies their 'test' to determine worker classification.


That doesn't meet the smell test in all situations. I'm from an AV and automation background and ran as both a contractor and as a supplier of work for contractors.

As a company contracting, I can absolutely define the "when" with no repercussions. I'm leaving the reservation here and stating that is the absolute practice as upheld, not the letter of the guidelines. The "how" is more open to interpretation. You can't tell them what tools to use or techniques, but you can certainly tell them they have to have to meet specs. In the end, the product has to be delivered to the specs we advertise or require.

I've never landed a contract that didn't dictate a uniform of some type (not theirs) and even vehicle color or signage.

By whom is where I agree fully. They can demand compliance with local laws and even their own standards such as background checks and insurance, but to forbid it is risky for sure.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> The burden is on you to show judicial rulings aren't influenced by the judge's view of social issues. Because it's that human nature that exists in judges that calls for an appeal process, and why 9 Supreme Court judges rarely rule unanimously on anything.


Typical egotist logic: You post an opinion as if it were fact and when someone challenges you, you tell them the 'burden is them' to prove your wrong.
Yeah... that's how scientists and lawyers go about presenting their work:
"Look. I've discovered efficient cold fusion" -
"Great, let's see it" -
"No - you prove I haven't found it".

ALL federal district courts have more than one judge - not just the Supreme court and they hear controversial cases en banc. 
(There are nearly 700 federal judgeships in the 89 federal district courts)

Repeat a MYTH over and over and people will think it's the truth...
You said:
_"...and why 9 Supreme Court judges rarely rule unanimously on anything."_

*Myth - and WRONG*.
Do you ever actually look ANYTHING up before misleading people with your BS?

Not only does the US Supreme Court vote unanimously more than 'rarely' -
*it votes unanimously on the MAJORITY of cases it hears.*
Oh - look - a source for factual information: http://tinyurl.com/7z8wvqk


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Uberdawg said:


> Now big companies can be dumb as dirt. Anyone remember Woolco, Howard Brothers, Woolworths, TG&Y, (and very soon KMart and Sears) all precursors to Wal Mart. Anyone know what Cromix is? A little company called Microsoft blasted their ass. How about Burger Chef? Hello Micky D's. Can barely find a Shakey's but they were the first Pizza Place. Everybody knows Sonic now but who remembers Hoppers? Stuckeys? Dead companies litter the landscape. Kodak, Tandy, Pan Am, Hertz, FTD, Rexall, Piccadilly, MySpace and on and on and on.....
> 
> Uber is going cheap. My contention is that their customers never started using Uber because it was cheap. It was faster, better and cashless. IMO, Lyft shouldn't compete on price. Be better, higher quality, a little more expensive. Be Costco to Sams. You may never be as big but you will sure as hell generate returns to shareholders.


So basically your admitting that as always companies come and go. So....

Let's see ya start a billion dollar company. It should be easy right. After all yer smarter than dirt right?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> Every one of the companies you mentioned made a shit load of money. In addition the people running them made a shit load of money. They didn't lose much of anything.
> 
> Companies come and go but to think they are dumb as dirt when they generate more in a day in most cases than you will over your lifetime....yea...dumb as dirt.


I think you have lost the thread of the discussion. Didn't you insinuate large companies were intelligent and aware of the costs by the fact that they were successful?

It's just not true. Very successful people and companies make huge mistakes. The one Uber is making, IMHO, is not realising that service, comfort, and safety is their model and not price.

Could I build a business that was evaluated as billions like Uber? Sure I could. All I need to do is rob others. If I had the morals to convince others that this is a good model, it's easy to get the investments from the greedy. I'm not built like that.

Did you think that people who make billions are always smart and/or moral?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> That doesn't meet the smell test in all situations.


As I said (and the IRS publishes), there is an entire list (and sub lists) of things the IRS uses to determine worker classification. *It's not black and white* and the initial determination is left to the employer to make, based on the published guidelines.

Any employee or government agency can 'challenge' the classification in court.
An employer (or accountant or normal lay person) can request an opinion from IRS as to worker classification by filing form SS-8 if no classification has yet been established by IRS. (It can take 6 to 8 months to hear back from the IRS and the opinion they provide is just that: only an opinion - it can still be challenged in court). yeah - I have to deal with SS-8's and workera lot in my work, so I know the process pretty well...

See IRS Ppublication 1779


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> The judge is not just going to care ZERO about social issues, he won't even know what they are (as you claim they are).


The stupid just keeps on coming with this one.

Supreme court justices not haveing any idea about social issues.

You should have just stopped posting here. I'm sure you could top it but I'm not sure how.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> So basically your admitting that as always companies come and go. So....
> 
> Let's see ya start a billion dollar company. It should be easy right. After all yer smarter than dirt right?


Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

People rarely get rich from their individual skills, they get rich from A) Duping others B) Robbing a resource C) Paying politicians to favor them D) Illegal enterprises.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Behind every great fortune is a great crime.
> 
> People rarely get rich from their individual skills, they get rich from A) Duping others B) Robbing a resource C) Paying politicians to favor them D) Illegal enterprises.


That describes Uber perfectly.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Very successful people and companies make huge mistakes.


Agreed.


> The one Uber is making, IMHO, is not realising that service, comfort, and safety is their model and not price.


I agree that's your opinion and that I could even share it if Uber were a public company responsible to its shareholders and had employees to whom it was also responsible... but it's not, and it doesn't.

TK and his partner have one objective right now, and that is to drive up the value as high as possible before taking the company public.
Knowing that is their goal, by no measure can anyone say they're not smart and doing the 'right' thing to achieve THEIR goal.
How do we know that?
Because in the history of the world, *no company before Uber has grown from inception to a $40+ Billion valuation in just 4 years*.

Uber owes its 'partners' nothing more than what is stated in the Uber Partner Agreement... until a court or legislation says otherwise.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> As I said (and the IRS publishes), there is an entire list (and sub lists) of things the IRS uses to determine worker classification. *It's not black and white* and the initial determination is left to the employer to make, based on the published guidelines.
> 
> Any employee or government agency can 'challenge' the classification in court.
> An employer (or accountant or normal lay person) can request an opinion from IRS as to worker classification by filing form SS-8 if no classification has yet been established by IRS. (It can take 6 to 8 months to hear back from the IRS and the opinion they provide is just that: only an opinion - it can still be challenged in court). yeah - I have to deal with SS-8's and workera lot in my work, so I know the process pretty well...
> ...


Great, then you know the contractor rarely prevails. And you realise the published guidelines would be subjective in a new business model. We agree.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I think you have lost the thread of the discussion. Didn't you insinuate large companies were intelligent and aware of the costs by the fact that they were successful?
> 
> It's just not true. Very successful people and companies make huge mistakes. The one Uber is making, IMHO, is not realising that service, comfort, and safety is their model and not price.
> 
> ...


No...I didnt insinuate it. I stated it. You really don't pay attention do you?

Of course they make mistakes. I never said they didn't. But that doesn't make them any less intelligent. Even the best company can be killed of by an economic crash. You could simply legislate a company out of existence. Nothing they can do about it. Say what ha want but Im Still waiting for you to tell me how you have done anything near what major companies have done in this country.

Uber is doing exactly what uber wants to do. If you think you have any clue to the inner workings then I would say you're full of shit. I'm pretty sure they don't consult with you.

As for you building a billion dollar company? I doubt it. You say you need to rob others to do it. Ok...show me where Uber has robbed anyone? Show me where they have lied to any of their investors. People by the way who do this for a living...researching companies that are going to be invested in. Just point out the victims.

As for smart or moral? Smart? Defianately. Show me an mentally deficient person who has made a billion dollar company. Moral? Define moral. Is it your definition? Is it holding to your commitment to investors? Is it doing what's best for a company over all or just looking out for the employees? Some are. Some are not. Bernie Madoff was a moral but extremely intelligent and made extreeme amount of money. What he did was outright theft.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Behind every great fortune is a great crime.
> 
> People rarely get rich from their individual skills, they get rich from A) Duping others B) Robbing a resource C) Paying politicians to favor them D) Illegal enterprises.


Ahhh....class envy revealed. Now it all comes clear. They got it. You didn't. They must have cheated the system somehow.

Well...I was fairly impressed up to this point. Then ya ate the gun.

Oh well.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I agree that's your opinion and that I could even share it if Uber were a public company responsible to its shareholders and had employees to whom it was also responsible... but it's not, and it doesn't.
> 
> ...


Think about this for a second. Many years from now someone will say....no company before company x has ever grown from inception to 50 billion in just 3.5 years. And it will be for the same reason Uber was able to grow to 40 billion in just 4 years.

Because at no other time in history was it possible to achieve. The money simply didn't exsist.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Great, then you know the contractor rarely prevails. And you realise the published guidelines would be subjective in a new business model. We agree.





RamzFanz said:


> Great, then you know the contractor rarely prevails. And you realise the published guidelines would be subjective in a new business model. We agree.


What about uber's stand on returning forgotten items? They specifically forbid charging the customer for doing that. How is this not undue control? At that point you're not even using their app and you are not even working for them. But they may punish (deactivate) you for charging a customer for your time and effort to drive across town.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> Totally agree. Of course they do. For example, read the recent SC cases on the Affordable Care Act and the dissenting opinions


I'm curious about just which "recent Supreme Court rulings" you are referring to...

In June 2012 the court split 5-4 to uphold the 'penalty' provision of the ACA... and Chief Justice Roberts (a conservative republican) voted with the progressive democrats on the mandate issue and the progressives sided with the conservatives on the State Medicaid issue , which would seem to indicate that the decision was based on interpreting the law, not on political factors or popular pressure.

That 2012 ruling was the only ruling the court has made on the ACA.

The only other case that's made it to the supremes is King v. Burwell, which has not yet been decided (and has a slim to none chance of succeeding in favor of the plaintiffs - that's the case where some on the right take one line of the act out of context and try to claim that (when read on it's own) means the Federal Gov't can't provide tax subsidies to residents in states where the Federal Gov't runs the 'marketplace' for residents of states that declined to set-up their own marketplace.

Am I missing a US Supreme Court case on the ACA?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What about uber's stand on returning forgotten items? They specifically forbid charging the customer for doing that. How is this not undue control? At that point you're not even using their app and you are not even working for them. But they may punish (deactivate) you for charging a customer for your time and effort to drive across town.


I didn't know that was Uber policy - but if it is, then you're absolutely correct.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> Think about this for a second. Many years from now someone will say....no company before company x has ever grown from inception to 50 billion in just 3.5 years. And it will be for the same reason Uber was able to grow to 40 billion in just 4 years. Because at no other time in history was it possible to achieve. The money simply didn't exsist.


Amazon is just 2o years old (in July)... and today is valued at <gulp> $168 Billion
Facebook has a market capitalization of $214 Billion and is only 10 years old (in two days)
The money has existed for decades.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Great, then you know the contractor rarely prevails. And you realise the published guidelines would be subjective in a new business model. We agree.


Yes... for the most part we do.
A lot of people seem to think this whole worker classification is a black and white issue - and it's not.
Right now the law is pretty heavily on the side of the drivers.
But *this type of work is a new area for the Dept of Labor - and Congress*...
We are going to see new legislation at some point (and IMHO, TK is counting on being able to influence that new legislation long before the appeals process on any district court rulings runs its course up the ladder to the Supreme Court).


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Amazon is just 2o years old (in July)... and today is valued at <gulp> $168 Billion
> Facebook has a market capitalization of $214 Billion and is only 10 years old (in two days)
> The money has existed for decades.


At what rate did those companies get that point and what was the availability of capital along the way?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> At what rate did those companies get that point and what was the availability of capital along the way?


It's all public info - Google it. The point is that both are modern companies, both recent and both raised all the capital they needed. The amount of capital (and valuation) is relative to the times - which I think was your point. My point is that we're talking about the elite of the elite... the next generation of companies as large as Apple (now $700 billion) and Microsoft (now $324 Billion). For a start-up to come out of the blocks at what is projected to be $60-$84 Billion at IPO time is impressive for a 4 year old company (that does nothing but market something and run a bunch of computer servers). Most people take that long to raise the capital to buy a freakin' Dunkin Donuts franchise.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's all public info - Google it. The point is that both are modern companies, both recent and both raised all the capital they needed. The amount of capital (and valuation) is relative to the times - which I think was your point. My point is that we're talking about the elite of the elite... the next generation of companies as large as Apple (now $700 billion) and Microsoft (now $324 Billion). For a start-up to come out of the blocks at what is projected to be $60-$84 Billion at IPO time is impressive for a 4 year old company (that does nothing but market something and run a bunch of computer servers). Most people take that long to raise the capital to buy a freakin' Dunkin Donuts franchise.


It is impressive....but only until the next one beats it.

As for the others? Look how long it took them to get there. It happened faster and faster because of available investment capital. The faster it grows the faster these things happen.

Anyway...looking at the pace of things I wonder if another tech bubble is in the offing?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> It is impressive....but only until the next one beats it. As for the others? Look how long it took them to get there.


Interesting discussion for another forum but not sure of the point of it here <shrug>...
in any case, Amazon (the oldest of those I mentioned) went from a an IPO valuation to ~$100 Billion in five years...
and that was 15 years ago.
Take that for what it's worth... but there is always capital available for the stand-outs - the game changers... the companies that change the way we do something.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> Ahhh....class envy revealed. Now it all comes clear. They got it. You didn't. They must have cheated the system somehow.
> 
> Well...I was fairly impressed up to this point. Then ya ate the gun.
> 
> Oh well.


You simply can't separate a debate from your emotions and need to attack others, can you?

I don't suffer from class envy. I admire successful people whether that involves riches or not. I'm also aware of how the world works.

Most people who become very rich use unethical or illegal business practises. Bill Gates used monopolies. The Kennedys used moonshine. The Saudi royal family are robbing their people of their resources. Putin invested other peoples money into oil and then nationalised his competitors. Zuckerberg stole a friends idea.

Very rarely do people achieve extreme wealth without an unethical advantage.

Companies are not inherently intelligent and the fact that I'm not a billionaire, and never will be, doesn't change that.

However, my point about Uber is that I believe they are killing their own model. This reputation they are creating with the drivers, who have customers as a captive audience, will be the end of them. Someone will innovate and steal the best drivers away by respecting their contribution.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What about uber's stand on returning forgotten items? They specifically forbid charging the customer for doing that. How is this not undue control? At that point you're not even using their app and you are not even working for them. But they may punish (deactivate) you for charging a customer for your time and effort to drive across town.


Good point.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You simply can't separate a debate from your emotions and need to attack others, can you?


No - he can't.
Making relevant and good points, or just ranting, all of his posts start with a comment denigrating someone else. And it's annoying as hell.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm curious about just which "recent Supreme Court rulings" you are referring to...
> 
> In June 2012 the court split 5-4 to uphold the 'penalty' provision of the ACA... and Chief Justice Roberts (a conservative republican) voted with the progressive democrats on the mandate issue and the progressives sided with the conservatives on the State Medicaid issue , which would seem to indicate that the decision was based on interpreting the law, not on political factors or popular pressure.
> 
> ...


Read Ginsberg dissenting opinion to the 2012 case as well as her opinion on the Hobby Lobby case.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

>>>read the recent SC cases on the Affordable Care Act<<< ref to the 2012 case.
Not 'recent'
and 'not 'cases'.

PS (fwiw) I don't think I've ever disagreed with an RBG SC opinion.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> >>>read the recent SC cases on the Affordable Care Act<<< ref to the 2012 case.
> Not 'recent'
> and 'not 'cases'.
> 
> PS (fwiw) I don't think I've ever disagreed with an RBG SC opinion.


Whatever.... I'm not going to debate the scope of "recent". But you may want to check out http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf - Ginsburg's dissent (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores)


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You simply can't separate a debate from your emotions and need to attack others, can you?
> 
> I don't suffer from class envy. I admire successful people whether that involves riches or not. I'm also aware of how the world works.
> 
> ...


There is no emotion involved here save for your class envy. You went full ****** on that one and exposed your true agenda.

Never go full ******.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Interesting discussion for another forum but not sure of the point of it here <shrug>...
> in any case, Amazon (the oldest of those I mentioned) went from a an IPO valuation to ~$100 Billion in five years...
> and that was 15 years ago.
> Take that for what it's worth... but there is always capital available for the stand-outs - the game changers... the companies that change the way we do something.


There ya go.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> There is no emotion involved here save for your class envy. You went full ****** on that one and exposed your true agenda.
> 
> Never go full ******.


Awww, did we upset you? Here's a tissue.


----------



## NightRider (Jul 23, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *4.1 Fare*
> *Calculation and Your Payment.*
> _You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus mileage and/or time amounts, as detailed for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, and, if applicable.
> You:
> ...


I was just discussing this with my partner (as in Domestic, completely opposite the Uber usage of such term, or is it... ;-D ) about the freedom we supposedly have to "lower" fares. You just made me realize that their careful language trickery completely worked in that I missed the smoke and mirrors and fell for the illusion. They first say that you can charge a different amount, since their fare is just a suggestion. Then they trot out a list of bullet points containing only downward-directing terms. By the time I got to the bottom of that list when I read it previously, my mind had come to the conclusion that "I absolutely have the right, if I choose, to charge the passenger a LOWER fare." That was pretty much the way I stated it during that discussion. And holy hell are they good at the razzle-dazzle!

So, isn't the fact that we are not even allowed to follow the "Contract" the we provide service under as Independent Contractors a demonstration of the control they exert over us?


----------



## NightRider (Jul 23, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> When Uber was paying the old rates, they were in a much better position to win the argument that drivers are just independent contractors. But with these new rates, they've shot themselves in the foot and could lose this argument as a result.
> 
> With these new rates, many drivers are left with a profit after their costs that is less than minimum wage. This math does not require $0.575 per mile costs to produce this result. With $0.65 to $0.80 rates, the math produces this result at even $0.25 to $0.30 per mile costs to the driver.
> 
> ...


You know, this brings up an interesting point.. I've seen a whole lot of evidence here that many drivers might actually be able to show a loss when you take the IRS' standard mileage deduction into consideration. If this is indeed the case, and Uber continues to follow this plan of cutting fares every few months, aren't we going to run into a problem in 3 years when you've reached the limit of how long the IRS allows you to run a business at a loss? I believe one of the requirements of running a business is that you need to have a profit motive to do so. At what point does choosing to drive for Uber become a hobby to the IRS?


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

NightRider said:


> You know, this brings up an interesting point.. I've seen a whole lot of evidence here that many drivers might actually be able to show a loss when you take the IRS' standard mileage deduction into consideration. If this is indeed the case, and Uber continues to follow this plan of cutting fares every few months, aren't we going to run into a problem in 3 years when you've reached the limit of how long the IRS allows you to run a business at a loss? I believe one of the requirements of running a business is that you need to have a profit motive to do so. At what point does choosing to drive for Uber become a hobby to the IRS?


If they don't pay better rates than they do now, there probably won't be any three year drivers left anyway.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

the guranteee is keeping most folks driving
when that goes,who knows


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

NightRider said:


> So, isn't the fact that we are not even allowed to follow the "Contract" the we provide service under as Independent Contractors a demonstration of the control they exert over us?


Precisely. And it is why, with their current app and under current law and IRS regulations the will lose the worker classification argument. However, should that happen, it wouldn't be difficult for them to change the terms of their driver agreements and add some features to the app (that we would all like to see - like add a tip, modify a fare, etc.) that would help them comply with the Independent Contractor worker classification requirements. I suspect they already have these changes and apps ready to go if needed.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uberdawg said:


> If they don't pay better rates than they do now, there probably won't be any three year drivers left anyway.


Yes and no. The IRS limit only prevents you from claiming deductions that reduce your income to less than zero (triggering a refund). Companies often operate for many years at a loss and use the negative income as carry-over to the next year. Look at the largest examples of this in the dot com industry where Google and Amazon operated at losses for more than a decade.

Of course you should talk to a CPA about this if you think you're going to be driving for a TNC for several years.


----------

