# Uber has to pay Alaska for claiming drivers are IC



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

And another state sets the bar

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/03/uber-agrees-to-pay-state-78k-for-misclassifying-employees/

*Uber to pay state $78K for misclassifying drivers*
By Anne Hillman, Urban Affairs Desk | September 3, 2015

Uber, the taxi-like ridesharing service, has agreed to pay the state $77,925 because they misclassified drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

The company operated in Anchorage for six months then pulled out in March because Uber could not come to an agreement with the municipality to legally operate in the city. The muni said the company was violating the taxi ordinance. Now, the company is also prohibited from operating in the state until they comply with the state's classification laws.

According to a statement from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, labeling workers as contractors lets companies avoid paying unemployment insurance, taxes, and worker compensation premiums. It also violates the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act. The money will go toward covering uninsured injured workers claims.

Similar lawsuits have been brought against the company throughout the country.


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.

2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.

3) Uber is actually CLOSING DOWN in Alaska... Is this what you want? 

------

Facts about being treated as employees:

- No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates). 

- No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out. 

- No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.

- Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.


----------



## poopy (Jun 28, 2015)

^


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> Facts about being treated as employees:
> - No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates).
> - No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out.
> - No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.
> - Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.


Everything you suggest is _POSSIBLE_ -
but far from being "Facts about being treated as employees"


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> And another state sets the bar
> 
> http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/03/uber-agrees-to-pay-state-78k-for-misclassifying-employees/
> 
> ...


WHEN IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN IN NJ? I want to be in the courtroom that day!


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

glados said:


> 1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.
> 
> 2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.
> 
> ...


You don't get it. We WANT to be REAL independent contractors. No deactivation for bad ratings, no more say "tips are not necessary" no more being forced to unwitting take a $4 ride - for $2.40 net - and most importantly SETTING OUR OWN RATES. Uber has you brainwashed, bucko. Their curent way is ILLEGAL. We have 100 years of labour laws here to protect people. And so do you down under ...


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> You don't get it. We WANT to be REAL independent contractors. No deactivation for bad ratings, no more say "tips are not necessary" no more being forced to unwitting take a $4 ride - for $2.40 net - and most importantly SETTING OUR OWN RATES. Uber has you brainwashed, bucko. Their curent way is ILLEGAL. We have 100 years of labour laws here to protect people. And so do you down under ...


They break a lot of laws currently.
1) WE ARE EMPLOYEES!! - they provide insurance and have policies on us.
2) THEY TELL US WE HAVE TO DO THINGS A CERTAIN WAY- bullshit! My business, my way. I'll continue paying a 20% royalty for use of the app. YES! Royalty! What we pay is a licensing fee. SHARK TANK WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU THE SAME THING.
3) THEY LIE TO CUSTOMERS - I tell riders enjoy the app, they break laws, enjoy it while it's still here.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

glados said:


> 1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.
> 
> 2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.
> 
> ...


Uber will never take on drivers as employees.

The government calling out Uber for treating drivers as employees will push Uber towards actually treating drivers as independent contractors.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Uber will never take on drivers as employees.
> 
> The government calling out Uber for treating drivers as employees will push Uber towards actually treating drivers as independent contractors.


We already are employees. THEY HAVE INSURANCE ON US, they also dictate who we have to take, what tips??, our management does not allow tipping.

WE ARE EMPLOYEES - TREATED AS ILLIGALS - WE WORK FOR THEM BUT NOT REALLY. Lol enjoy now they may disappear. They do treat us like employees.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

MarkR said:


> We already are employees. THEY HAVE INSURANCE ON US, they also dictate who we have to take, what tips??, our management does not allow tipping.
> 
> WE ARE EMPLOYEES - TREATED AS ILLIGALS - WE WORK FOR THEM BUT NOT REALLY. Lol enjoy now they may disappear.


That's the point. Since Uber is treating drivers like employees, then either Uber starts ponying up for the burdens employees are legally responsible for, or Uber stops treating drivers like employees. There is 0.0001% chance Uber ponies up to the legal burdens of being an employer, and 99.9999% chance it forces Uber to stop treating drivers like employees. I can't for the life of me understand why drivers want the status quo.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Mark said:


> WE ARE EMPLOYEES!! - they provide insurance and have policies on us.


What do you think the Safe Rider Fees (driver & rider are charged) go to pay? Insurance! Uber does not give us anything.

A Well-Known Member is welcome to correct me should I be wrong.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> That's the point. Since Uber is treating drivers like employees, then either Uber starts ponying up for the burdens employees are legally responsible for, or Uber stops treating drivers like employees. There is 0.0001% chance Uber ponies up to the legal burdens of being an employer, and 99.9999% chance it forces Uber to stop treating drivers like employees. I can't for the life of me understand why drivers want the status quo.


I have no idea either. They want it both ways! You can't have a business and NOT have the tax liabilty. NJ should wake up and either get UBER out of the state or give us our W4 to fill out so we can have the taxes taken out. In the mean time, UBER should stop telling pax not to tip as I don't work for UBER and that's what EMPLOYERS DO!


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

If Uber lost in court, it would reduce pax usage, and result in lower earnings for drivers.

Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate someone who made unwanted sexual advances on a pax, borderlining on rape but not enough for a criminal prosecution? Will that pax still use Uber?

Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate drivers who take 30 mile "scenic routes" instead of the shortest 10 mile route? Will that pax still use Uber if they are unable to get a fare adjustment?

Uber makes money only when you make money. The incentives are currently aligned, but if lawyers get their way it *won't *benefit partners -- only them.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

glados said:


> partners


Partners??? (Yes, this is a C&P of another post of UNS)

_If_ Uber (U) had an agreement with its ICs that was not so one-sided, we would not be witching!

1. Allow us to be represented as a group by an outside agency to be sure the agreement is in the ICs' best interest. U has its lawyers for its representation.
2. No discouraging of tipping by U in any way, shape, or form. To reverse previous messages to pax, U will put a statement on rider's app that "Tip is not included.".
3. Rates/fees per mile/min are to be _set no less than _75% of the average local _major _taxi cab companies in each city.
4. U drops its commission to no more than 15% on all platforms. No more raising commissionson for high platforms to make up for low rates on X & XL platforms.
5. If U keeps commission at 20%, U is to pay each driver 18¢ per mile on the # of miles clocked on each driver's pay period while driving to pax until pax is at destination or trip is ended to pay 1/2 the cost of running a car.
5. ICs will not be limited to driving just on U app. IC's outside _legal _business is of no concern to U.
6. Ratings on drivers will cease. If a rider has a comment on a rider, U will provide a B.I.T.C.H. link for such.
B-eautiful
I-ntelligent
T-alented
C-harming
H-elpful

No comments? The driver is good to go.


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

There would be no Uber if it operated under these abhorrent terms. With no ratings system, Uber will not be able to detect and deactivate drivers for serious incidents and riders will stop riding Uber due to the poor experience.

Uber's commission covers variable expenses including the cost of payments processing, fraud, automated dispatching, driver and rider support, and much more. Uber is a low margin business.

And finally... one of the reasons many riders use Uber is because there is *no tipping*. Increased riders = more rides for drivers = more $$$. It's the same philosophy between the rate cuts that Uber does with a lot of data and testing -- Uber has reversed rate cuts in many markets according to data.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

glados said:


> Increased riders = more rides for drivers = more $$$


Drivers can make only so many runs per hour.



glados said:


> Uber will not be able to detect and deactivate drivers for serious incidents and riders will stop riding Uber due to the poor experience.


 By adding a comment link riders can express their displeasure with a ride instead of using a numerical range of numbers which do not say "why."


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> Drivers can make only so many runs per hour.


That's where Perpetual Rides comes in. Eventually drivers may be on a paid trip 100% of the time, picking up and dropping pax along the way.



UberNorthStar said:


> By adding a comment link riders can express their displeasure with a ride instead of using a numerical range of numbers which do not say "why."


It is simply unfeasible to pay someone to review every single comment by a rider when they say something like "Thanks for the ride", etc. A stars ratings system have been shown in studies to be scientifically accurate with large sample sizes.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> If Uber lost in court, it would reduce pax usage, and result in lower earnings for drivers.


That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.



> Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate someone who made unwanted sexual advances on a pax, borderlining on rape but not enough for a criminal prosecution? Will that pax still use Uber? Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate drivers who take 30 mile "scenic routes" instead of the shortest 10 mile route? Will that pax still use Uber if they are unable to get a fare adjustment?


That is nonsense.
Uber can still 'deactivate' an IC or 'fire' an employee for inappropriate conduct. But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want) and they can't threaten us over poor ratings that are provided to us anonymously, over things which we have no control - and are often the result of Uber's actions (like Surge Pricing).



> Uber makes money only when you make money.


That is a flat out falsehood.
Uber makes money EVERY SINGLE TIME I GIVE A RIDE - whether I make money on the ride or lose money on the ride.
*Uber makes money REGARDLESS of whether or not I make money.*



> The incentives are currently aligned, but if lawyers get their way it *won't *benefit partners -- only them.


No they're not. The incentives encourage more and shorter rides per hour because THAT is what is more profitable to Uber... not the driver.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Uber can still 'deactivate' an IC or 'fire' an employee for inappropriate conduct. But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want) and they can't threaten us over poor ratings that are provided to us anonymously, over which we have no control - and are often the result of Uber's actions (like Surge Pricing).
> ...


HAHAHAHA... You put a lot more time into this than I would


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.


A lower passenger experience will result in less rides, which means less earnings for partners.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want


By declining a significant number of rides, you are making the system unreliable as further away drivers must pick them up.

Think about it like this: Do you think Uber should let someone who times out _every single request_, increasing request ETAs and making the system unreliable? If so, should Uber deactivate someone who deactivates 99%? 98%? etc.

Uber is within the legal framework by deactivating drivers that severely impacts its operations, and that's exactly what Uber is doing. Drivers do have the right to only accept the requests they want.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Uber makes money REGARDLESS of whether or not I make money.*


This is a logical fallacy. If you are not making money driving for Uber, then you should sign up for another Uber service (e.g. UberSELECT), or stop driving for Uber. As only drivers making a profit should be driving for Uber, Uber will only make money when drivers make money.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

glados said:


> A stars ratings system have been shown in studies to be scientifically accurate with large sample sizes.


Then move from a 5-1 reading to a 10-1 reading. with a 6.5 cutoff for being a driver. Most people believe 
5 = perfect so they rate a 4 for a driver. As posted elsewhere on these threads, some pax do not rate the driver until their next request & they _must rate_ the previous ride before requesting the next

My solution: Give the pax a maximum of an hour to rate the ride or the stars go away with the opportunity to rate. If the rating is below a certain number, the pax needs to explain why. No explanation? The rating does not go into the average rating for that driver.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

glados said:


> A lower passenger experience will result in less rides, which means less earnings for partners.
> 
> By declining a significant number of rides, you are making the system unreliable as further away drivers must pick them up.
> 
> ...


I do have one VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. What the hell does
*"Uber has to Alaska" mean?? This is not a correct sentence or any kind of sentence. Just curious. Have a good night.*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> A lower passenger experience will result in less rides, which means less earnings for partners.


First, again - that's your opinion about what may happen, not fact...
and since ridership continues to grow, despite lower standards for both cars and drivers, there is nothing to support your assumption.



> By declining a significant number of rides, you are making the system unreliable as further away drivers must pick them up.


While I don't necessarily disagree with you on that, you're talking about ''declining [a] significant number of rides".
Right now it is Uber who defines that, completely arbitrarily, at its discretion, with no recourse for drivers. Acceptance rates vary for a lot of reasons. Even on a day when I accept every single ping I get, at least one or two go 'unaccepted' due to Uber network problems. Those are, incorrectly, scored against me - and I have no recourse.


> Think about it like this: Do you think Uber should let someone who times out _every single request_, increasing request ETAs and making the system unreliable? If so, should Uber deactivate someone who deactivates 99%? 98%? etc.


Now you think about it: If Uber drivers are independent contractors only licensing the software/app (as opposed to employees providing the core services of the employer) than what business is it of Uber's? Uber should only be concerned about drivers who decline rides IF providing rides is UBER'S business. As one of our more notable members here points out in his signature: Tech company my butt.


> Uber is within the legal framework by deactivating drivers that severely impacts its operations,


That would be true ONLY if Uber is a transportation company, not a tech company licensing its software.
You just made my case.


> This is a logical fallacy. If you are not making money driving for Uber,
> then you should sign up for another Uber service (e.g. UberSELECT), or stop driving for Uber.


I'll make you a deal:
You don't tell me what I *should*, and I won't tell you hat you should do.
I'll trust that you are intelligent enough to make your own decisions
(and hope that you are wise enough to understand that everyone makes the best decision they can for themselves based on the options available to them and their own unique circumstances).


> As only drivers making a profit should be driving for Uber, ...


Funny - I missed that in my Uber Partner Agreement... can you share yours with me?


> Uber will only make money when drivers make money


HA! And believing that is why so many drivers lose money while Uber's valuation has risen faster than any company in history.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I do have one VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. What the hell does
> *"Uber has to Alaska" mean?? *This is not a correct sentence or any kind of sentence. Just curious. Have a good night.


yeah - that caught my eye too.
It's supposed to say:
"Uber Has To Pay Alaska... "


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> First, again - that's your opinion about what may happen, not fact...
> and since ridership continues to grow, despite lower standards for both cars and drivers, there is nothing to support your assumption.


It is your opinion that standards for drivers are being lowered. With Uber's lowering of vehicle requirements in certain markets, it is actually improving the rider experience by allowing for more reliable rides with shorter ETAs due to more drivers.

It is a fact that the positive user experiences created by the ratings system is fueling Uber's growth. Please see this independent study: https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static/comms/PDF/Uber_Driver-Partners_Hall_Kreuger_2015.pdf



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now it is Uber who defines that, completely arbitrarily, at its discretion, with no recourse for drivers. Acceptance rates vary for a lot of reasons. Even on a day when I accept every single ping I get, at least one or two go 'unaccepted' due to Uber network problems. Those are, incorrectly, scored against me - and I have no recourse.


You are not being penalised with fines, etc, for declining a ride. If you decline a significant number of rides, then you may face warnings or deactivation, but the vast vast majority of drivers never get any of these texts.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> First, again - that's your opinion about what may happen, not fact...
> and since ridership continues to grow, despite lower standards for both cars and drivers, there is nothing to support your assumption.
> 
> While I don't necessarily disagree with you on that, you're talking about ''declining [a] significant number of rides".
> ...


You know, I've been thinking about this whole employee I.C. thing and it all comes down to licensing. We were given a chance to earn real money...cold hard cash right? Ok so here we are; we have an app.... and to use this app you have to pay a royalty...hence the 20%. This could easily have been more but it is what it is. Having said that, had these developers not have this techology, we would still be where we are no but without the "burden" of MAKING MOOOONEY. So think of the $1 Uber takes to put towards your insurance per ride as your secondary insurance that you would otherwise pay thousands for. That's not bad when you consider all you have to do is make a trip or 2 to the airport and you can make what you want. I don't care about cabs!......they have their own problems and issues, they should have thought of this techology first if they really wanted it. wah wah wah, anyway just some food for thought. Had it not been for this part time job for me, I would not be going on a trip that's well deserved.

Drive Safe!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> It is your opinion that standards for drivers are being lowered.


No, that's actually a fact, made public by Uber when they lowered the year of an acceptable car.


> With Uber's lowering of vehicle requirements in certain markets, it is actually improving the rider experience ...


You have ZERO evidence of that.
Anecdotaly, riders tell me the X cars they get now are not as nice, and that many drivers do not know the area - or speak English well.
You are picking and choosing what, in your opinion, is a positive or negative in the UX. Which is fine... as opinion goes.


> It is a fact that the positive user experiences created by the ratings system is fueling Uber's growth. Please see this independent study: https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static/comms/PDF/Uber_Driver-Partners_Hall_Kreuger_2015.pdf


It is sad that you take and present as 'fact' a study produced by Uber...
one that was produced BEFORE UBER MADE ITS LAST TWO ROUNDS OF FARE CUTS.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> So think of the $1 Uber takes to put towards your insurance per ride as your secondary insurance that you would otherwise pay thousands for.


I am so tired of people misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the Uber insurance covers. IT IS A LIABILITY POLICY that covers the driver and UBER from liability (up to its limits) against claims of damage to your passenger or others. It is NOT collision insurance that covers the driver's vehicle.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I am so tired of people misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the Uber insurance covers. IT IS A LIABILITY POLICY that covers the driver and UBER from liability (up to its limits) against claims of damage to your passenger or others. It is NOT collision insurance that covers the driver's vehicle.


That's why I will NEVER drop collision.


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> I pay $0.07 a mile for insurance with metromile. Uber collects $1. Do the math.


Metromile insurance is not commercial, Uber's insurance through James River is. Do note that the insurance covers you from the moment you've accepted the ride.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Michael-Cleveland said:


> IT IS A LIABILITY POLICY that covers the driver and UBER from liability (up to its limits) against claims of damage to your passenger or others.


I am repeating Michael somewhat . . .
UBER's insurance is a Commercial Liability Policy that covers injury to pax & the other driver(s) as well as any damages they may incur. The $1M umbrella policy is a CYA for Uber.

There is nothing for the medical expenses for the Uber driver or for his damages. I don't trust the contingency clause Most companies will cancel your auto insurance when they learn of your TNC driving.

For that reason I am changing auto insurance to Liberty.Mutual who will cover the "gap" and provide me w/commercial collision & commercial comprehensive coverage as well as coverage when I drive for personal reasons.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Commercial insurance is very expensive. You probably can take that off your taxes as well as anything else out of pocket like I'm going to do. Tires, car wash, maintenance, gas, you name it I'm taking it off .


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> That's why I will NEVER drop collision.


It doesn't matter if you have your own collision coverage - your policy will not cover you if you are in an accident while using your vehicle for any commercial livery purpose unless you have a 'ride-share' policy.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

glados said:


> A lower passenger experience will result in less rides, which means less earnings for partners.
> 
> By declining a significant number of rides, you are making the system unreliable as further away drivers must pick them up.
> 
> ...


By declining rides that are over 10 minutes away from me I am creating rides for drivers that are potentially closer or will be shortly becasue they are heading in that direction.

Drivers don't have the right to accept the jobs they want because they are under threat of deactivation by Uber if they do not accept over 80%

Uber DOES make money every trip and even the best drivers can lose money on some trips. I don't think Glados drives because clearly they don't understand the driver costs.

If I drive 15 minutes to pick up a rider who then takes the minimum $4 ride I lose money and Uber still gets its 80 cents.

driver expenses:
gas $1.00 (gas prices are the highest in the nation in CA)
mileage/maintenance $.75
personal insurance .75
risk of accident that cripples or kills me $1

total gross after expenses and ubers cut

-.30

NEGATIVE 30 CENTS is how much I made. THat means I am subsidizing uber and the passengers. I and every other driver who does this is bank rolling UBER. That's the facts.

Since you are an insider why not work for better tech in the app. that benefits the drivers and uber; for instance if a driver picks up a rider and goes on a long trip taking them out of there home area to an airport. The app should que the rider in a special list for riders requesting trips back to the drivers home area or at least in that general direction.

and, Why won't uber share the destination info with rider anyway?! they clearly have the info on most trips and they clearly withhold it intentionally. I would have to assume that's because they want riders immediately getting rides. no matter or not if they are a money loser for the driver. If uber wants to solve that they need to raise the minimum to $10, this would guarantee that if someone drives 15 minutes to pick up they will make some small profit regardless.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

glados said:


> Please see this independent study: https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static/comms/PDF/Uber_Driver-Partners_Hall_Kreuger_2015.pdf


That's got to be the shilliest shit you've said so far! Calling the Hall, Krueger & Benenson Strategic Group Uber PR piece an "Independent Study"!

*(Edited) Uber Study: UberX Drivers Grossed $16.50/Hr (B4 Expenses) During Oct. In 20 Biggest Markets*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> ...and, Why won't uber share the destination info with rider anyway?! they clearly have the info on most trips and they clearly withhold it intentionally. I would have to assume that's because they want riders immediately getting rides.


Aside from the obvious reason not to share the ride destination before pick-up, riders are not required to enter a destination when they request a car... so there isn't any information to share in many cases (and there would be even less if it were shared before acceptance).


----------



## UberBlooper (Aug 14, 2015)

if we were considered to be employees, some jobs do have the flexibility of signing up for a certain time frame 

you would get a base pay (guaranteed) and then be paid for the miles you drive pax.. that would be the only positive

i would be hurt if the flexibility was adjusted… maybe they could set it so hourly rate is based on how long your app is turned on for (which could lead to people gaming the system by being logged in and not accepting pings) which would lead to people being fired

gosh just thinking about how all this can go wrong, the techies would have a lot of headaches trying to figure out how this would work but no matter what happens they will profit and i just hope the drivers aren't shifted the bill too much


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberBlooper said:


> if we were considered to be employees, some jobs do have the flexibility of signing up for a certain time frame


Where do you (and others) get this stuff?
Do you just make it up as you go?

THE IRS DOES NOT DICTATE WHAT WORK AN EMPLOYEE MUST DO, WHEN THEY DO IT - OR HOW THEY DO IT.
The ONLY thing the IRS cares about is the classification as it pertains to tax law.

THE DEPT OF LABOR DOES NOT DICTATE WHAT WORK AN EMPLOYEE MUST DO, WHEN THEY DO IT - OR HOW THEY DO IT.
The ONLY things the Dept of Labor cares about are enforcing their regulations which implement employee rights under the Fair Labor and Standards Act.

Since Uber's APPs already automatically track all 'on call' time (app-on/no-ride)
and 'ON-RIDE' time,
implementing payroll, tax and benefits for each and every individual driver is a no-brainer.


----------



## UberBlooper (Aug 14, 2015)

@Michael - Cleveland im in support of the employee classification as long as it doesn't get loss into the old ways of thinking like a regular 9 to 5 does

some examples of flexible jobs are event based jobs and some of the new startup gigs

this is all so new so their is a lot of animosity going on because this type of job is perfect for people who have a "life" and want to be more in control of there work schedule.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberBlooper said:


> if we were considered to be employees, some jobs do have the flexibility of signing up for a certain time frame
> 
> you would get a base pay (guaranteed) and then be paid for the miles you drive pax.. that would be the only positive
> 
> i would be hurt if the flexibility was adjusted&#8230; maybe they could set it so hourly rate is based on how long your app is turned on for (which could lead to people gaming the system by being logged in and not accepting pings) which would lead to people being fired


Please read this thread, it'll ease up some of yours fears and clear up some of the misconceptions.


chi1cabby said:


> "Even if Uber loses this case, it will be free to restructure its relationship with its drivers in such a way that the drivers would actually be bona fide independent contractors," Chen wrote


*(Updated) #UberLAWSUIT | The fate of Uber drivers in California remains in the air*


----------



## UberBlooper (Aug 14, 2015)

thanks for the link chi1cabby going to be a good read i just started slowly digesting this pdf, reading this skillful worded document prepared by top lawyers is really exciting *grabs popcorn & continues reading


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Aside from the obvious reason not to share the ride destination before pick-up, riders are not required to enter a destination when they request a car... so there isn't any information to share in many cases (and there would be even less if it were shared before acceptance).


I don't agree with your assertion that there's an obvious reason for withholding destination info. I've spouted off endlessly about this point, I know. But dear readers, it's not a given that drivers will dodge trips based on destination. There's so many freaking drivers out there 24/7 that someone else is very likely to want trips I have rejected.

Give us the destination.

Cut the commission.

Raise rates.

Thin out the herd.

Focus on keeping drivers and keeping those drivers happy. The drivers will keep customers happy. I don't want to be everybody's (cheap) private driver.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Honestly I don't know why I even care. I was deactivated for lack of participation months ago. I would like to see them pull their heads out of their asses though. It's a great idea that could really help me filling downtime, but they're not interested in what I need. Pro drivers have ditched UBER in huge numbers, at least from what I've seen.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberBlooper said:


> @Michael - Cleveland im in support of the employee classification as long as it doesn't get loss into the old ways of thinking like a regular 9 to 5 does
> some examples of flexible jobs are event based jobs and some of the new startup gigs
> this is all so new so their is a lot of animosity going on because this type of job is perfect for people who have a "life" and want to be more in control of there work schedule.


You have some research to do.
Bankers and postal workers are about the only 9-5 jobs left.
And if you think an "EVENT BASED" job is flexible, try not showing up to work a scheduled event.

Just as chi1cabby said, Uber can easily accommodate employee status without changing how drivers work. The classification is about what an employer must do under the law - not what an employee has to do.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

stuber said:


> I don't agree with your assertion that there's an obvious reason for withholding destination info. I've spouted off endlessly about this point, I know. But dear readers, it's not a given that drivers will dodge trips based on destination.


There's about 50 years of cab history and cab regulation that disagrees with your opinion.
<shrug> But heck... you're an independent contractor: When you get a ping, accept and text the pax asking for the destination.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> And another state sets the bar
> 
> http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/03/uber-agrees-to-pay-state-78k-for-misclassifying-employees/
> 
> ...


They have balls in AK


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> Commercial insurance is very expensive.


Relative to what?
My general liability coverage for my business costs me $10,000/year.
Plus a separate premium for 'professional liability' coverage.
Why would a commercial policy for a car-for-hire be any less?


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

glados said:


> 1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.
> 
> 2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.
> 
> ...


Totally wrong bud !


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> They have balls in AK


slow down, cowboy...
Alaska also gave us Palin.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

glados said:


> There would be no Uber if it operated under these abhorrent terms. With no ratings system, Uber will not be able to detect and deactivate drivers for serious incidents and riders will stop riding Uber due to the poor experience.
> 
> Uber's commission covers variable expenses including the cost of payments processing, fraud, automated dispatching, driver and rider support, and much more. Uber is a low margin business.
> 
> And finally... one of the reasons many riders use Uber is because there is *no tipping*. Increased riders = more rides for drivers = more $$$. It's the same philosophy between the rate cuts that Uber does with a lot of data and testing -- Uber has reversed rate cuts in many markets according to data.


Are you really trying to say UBER gives a F*** 
I hope they ask how deactivation will affect you finances LMAO!'


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

stuber said:


> Honestly I don't know why I even care. I was deactivated for lack of participation months ago. I would like to see them pull their heads out of their asses though. It's a great idea that could really help me filling downtime, but they're not interested in what I need. Pro drivers have ditched UBER in huge numbers, at least from what I've seen.


That is why I never joined 
You have to keep full control of your biz


----------



## UberBlooper (Aug 14, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You have some research to do.
> Bankers and postal workers are about the only 9-5 jobs left.
> And if you think an "EVENT BASED" job is flexible, try not showing up to work a scheduled event.
> 
> Just as chi1cabby said, Uber can easily accommodate employee status without changing how drivers work. The classification is about what an employer must do under the law - not what an employee has to do.


Maybe if your a banker who makes commission off upselling , my day job is actually a postal worker how ever I'm not a career employee (long story short Union and management created a position for all the people calling in sick and on light duty)

I heard something new that really got me thinking and that is , basic income guarantee (because basically there is a big problem with the poor and homeless, also high tech will replace labor based jobs pretty soon)


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Relative to what?
> My general liability coverage for my business costs me $10,000/year.
> Plus a separate premium for 'professional liability' coverage.
> Why would a commercial policy for a car-for-hire be any less?


My car insurance including collision is less than a thousand. With 10 grand, If I had it, I teach so I don't ... I could get out of debt.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There's about 50 years of cab history and cab regulation that disagrees with your opinion.
> <shrug> But heck... you're an independent contractor: When you get a ping, accept and text the pax asking for the destination.


It's what I do. Especially if the pick up is more than 10 minutes away from my house


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> My car insurance including collision is less than a thousand. With 10 grand, If I had it, I teach so I don't ... I could get out of debt.


right - that's a personal car policy.
When you drive commercially, you are running a business (and obviously driving a lot more - AND have much higher liability due to paxs). A commercial car policy is analogous to general liability insurance for a business.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> Commercial insurance is very expensive.


While at the shop today getting rear brakes I was talking to a Livery Driver ...
I asked him if he did Uber Black and said that he couldn't anymore because his 2005 Caddy aged out of the system. He's been driving car service for 18 years and has a nice client list and gets referrals from all of the hotels (he makes sure he knows the concierges at all of 'em).
I asked what he pays for commercial insurance and he told me $2,000/yr - and that he's been with the same carrier for all 18 years and that's why it's so low.

If I cold find a policy that cheap I think I'd take it out even without driving Uber Black... just to cover me for X and SELECT.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

I have had quotes between $12,000 & $24,000 for full commercial coverage (same company).

Now a different company is offering me personal (full coverage), and commercial (comprehensive, collision & medical) for $1115/yr. Uber will cover the commercial liability.

UNS


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

stuber said:


> Honestly I don't know why I even care. I was deactivated for lack of participation months ago. I would like to see them pull their heads out of their asses though. It's a great idea that could really help me filling downtime, but they're not interested in what I need. Pro drivers have ditched UBER in huge numbers, at least from what I've seen.


yep. I have suspected that the rating system is only used to thin the herd of low rev producers or rapists and circus freaks. hit me with a 1 star it matters not except on your car-ma*


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Relative to what?
> My general liability coverage for my business costs me $10,000/year.
> Plus a separate premium for 'professional liability' coverage.
> Why would a commercial policy for a car-for-hire be any less?


You need an LLC, then you can skip the payments and if you get sued, it's not you its the LLC. File Chapter 11 and start another LLC. That's the way corporate America has been doing it so why not join in the party?


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Aside from the obvious reason not to share the ride destination before pick-up, riders are not required to enter a destination when they request a car... so there isn't any information to share in many cases (and there would be even less if it were shared before acceptance).


Wrong, the request would go to another driver and there are plenty of low info drivers that will take it. Anyway, uber shouldn't be going after the under $10 fare anyway. It's makes really bad business sense and the only reason to do it is to try and eliminate all competition which never works. Just look at what the medallion system did to the taxi industry if you doubt that. Uber should be focusing on the medium to long distance trips and they could easily tune the app to encourage those fares and discourage the low hanging fruit.

THere's a reason people pay more for a brand they think is cool or good or ethical... and Uber is ruining their brand by chasing the bottom.

But that doesn't matter anyway because Uber and its C-staff know that this is a business that will be owned by whoever develops street legal robot cars first and that ain't gonna be uber, so they are lining their pockets the fastest way they know how which is courting venture capital with phony promises and the short term appearance of market dominance.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> You need an LLC, then you can skip the payments and if you get sued, it's not you its the LLC. File Chapter 11 and start another LLC. That's the way corporate America has been doing it so why not join in the party?


If you are the only partner in an S Corp or LLC then the corporate structure serves ZERO protection as a corporate shield against liability. Only a C corp can even begin to provide that kind of liability shield. AND since YOU are the one delivering the service (as a driver) you will still be sued individually.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There's about 50 years of cab history and cab regulation that disagrees with your opinion.
> <shrug> But heck... you're an independent contractor: When you get a ping, accept and text the pax asking for the destination.


I don't dispute your premise that that dodging short or unprofitable trips has always been a problem. And as you say, there's a lot of history to point to which lends credence to your point. But...there's never been the volume of data and real time tracking that UBER has access to. UBER has so much better information than has ever existed, and so much more capability to manage the dispersal of vehicles within their system, I find it hard to believe they couldn't solve this basic problem. They just don't want to.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Wrong, the request would go to another driver and there are plenty of low info drivers that will take it.


It's always amusing when someone makes a blanket statement about a circumstance as if
a) they have some corner on the knowledge that no one else has and
b) every ride and request in every city for every driver and rider is identical in circumstance.


> Anyway, uber shouldn't be going after the under $10 fare anyway. It's makes really bad business sense...


With such insight into Uber's business and what works effectively in the market you really *should* consider starting a competitive service so it can be done 'right'.



> ...and the only reason to do it is to try and eliminate all competition which never works.


Hardly. There are a litany of reasons - but it boils down to Ubers 'mission statement': To be "Everyone's Private Driver".
You don't' have to agree with their mission... but it's that vision that has attracted billions of $ of venture capital investment.



> Uber should be focusing on the medium to long distance trips...


Disagreeing with Uber's business model is one thing
(and a fun game we ALL play to one degree or another),
but stating what Uber "_should do_" is a fool's game.
Uber WILL do what its own research and experience guide it to do.
Just because you don't "get" what it is they are doing, doesn't make it wrong for Uber.
It may be wrong for us as drivers... but that doesn't make it wrong for Uber.

I'll repeat this (sorry for the redundancy)...
*UBER MAKES MORE MONEY WHEN DRIVERS ARE MORE EFFICIENT. 
MORE SHORT TRIPS PER DRIVER PER HOUR IS MORE PROFITABLE TO UBER.*

It's simple math, driven by existing data.
You can see my detailed breakdown earlier in this thread.



> THere's a reason people pay more for a brand they think is cool or good or ethical...


Only the MINORITY do that.
The Mass Market majority shop at Wal*Mart to save a few pennies...
even at the cost of quality AND US manufacturing jobs.



> ...and Uber is ruining their brand by chasing the bottom.


You should write and tell them. I'm sure they'll welcome your insight.
You cannot talk about the expansion of services to the lower end
while ignoring the expansion of services at the higher end (which serves those who want that higher level of service - at the same price X service was costing just a year ago).


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

glados said:


> Metromile insurance is not commercial, Uber's insurance through James River is. Do note that the insurance covers you from the moment you've accepted the ride.


So you are an UBER employee right? Your cut and paste skills are magnificent.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

stuber said:


> I don't dispute your premise that that dodging short or unprofitable trips has always been a problem. And as you say, there's a lot of history to point to which lends credence to your point. But...there's never been the volume of data and real time tracking that UBER has access to. UBER has so much better information than has ever existed, and so much more capability to manage the dispersal of vehicles within their system, I find it hard to believe they couldn't solve this basic problem. They just don't want to.


I think they have 'solved' the dx part of it by 'hiding' that information from the dispatch. (assuming the 'problem' is that pax are being neglected by drivers who cherry pick trips). I don't see how anyone can solve the pick-up part... I mean, you have to tell a driver where the pick-up location is.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's always amusing when someone makes a blanket statement about a circumstance as if
> a) they have some corner on the knowledge that no one else has and
> b) every ride and request in every city for every driver and rider is identical in circumstance.
> 
> ...


LOL why would such a company boy ^ like my post and then deny everything I had to say. To much truth maybe. Obviously the drivers making a profit are at odds with ubers model as you have discovered. But when drivers can't make a profit they stop driving. I doubt uber cares though becasue as they have said drivers are disposable. Thats a short term attitude to take which only bolsters my opinion that they aren't in this for the long run, they are in it for VC and a fast IPO, then sell or exit the company before being destroyed by the real money.

I would not buy stock in uber unless I had an insiders deal and was able to buy it with no restrictions on when I could sell. PUMP and DUMP this is the way they do it.

and BTW this is all opinion based on experience I don't care if you like it or not, 1* me!


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I think they have 'solved' the dx part of it by 'hiding' that information from the dispatch. (assuming the 'problem' is that pax are being neglected by drivers who cherry pick trips). I don't see how anyone can solve the pick-up part... I mean, you have to tell a driver where the pick-up location is.


Not really, they could not display that if they wanted to, until after you accepted. At least they throw us a bone and give us 15 seconds to think about it. But still we just accept and cancel or contact rider and ask and cancel or get the rider to cancel for us. Uber knows that the cancellation rate would go up if they didn't give us this minimal amount of intel and that hurts there image as "everyones personal driver" so that's why they don't do it. Playing ubers game by ubers rules will cause a driver to go broke this is why they don't deactivate anyone generating real rev regardless of 1* ratings. employee status no thanks, full exposure of fare information is what the contractors should be fighting for.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> LOL why would such a company boy ^ like my post and then deny everything I had to say. To much truth maybe.


Maybe because I respect people who can voice an intelligent opinion, even if I disagree with it.
Apparently I gave you too much credit?


> ...and BTW this is all opinion based on experience I don't care if you like it or not, 1* me!


hehe... now THERE's something I can agree with!


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

There's 3 basic operating modes in the world of " for hire passenger transportation". Maybe there's more, but here's the 3 as I see it:

1. Operate like a taxi. Work a shift. Bounce around from job to job and do your best to minimize downtime and deadheading. This is UBER.

2. Operate like a limo or livery car. Prearranged trips booked and dispatched in advance. Work however (whenever) the assignments dictate. Ideally,you take the runs that offer the most money in the least amount of time and require the fewest number of unpaid miles. This is me.

3. Operate like a rideshare. Again, prearranged, but only running on predefined routes ( or close to predefined) Think bus. Think Super Shuttle. 

OK. This is no great revelation. And it's true that there's some crossover between the different modes. What's goofy about UBER (amongst many goofy things) is that they're utilizing livery sedans, making them operate like taxis, and calling it ridesharing.

No wonder there's so much complaining. They've managed to annoy and confuse all 3 types of operators.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> While at the shop today getting rear brakes I was talking to a Livery Driver ...
> I asked him if he did Uber Black and said that he couldn't anymore because his 2005 Caddy aged out of the system. He's been driving car service for 18 years and has a nice client list and gets referrals from all of the hotels (he makes sure he knows the concierges at all of 'em).
> I asked what he pays for commercial insurance and he told me $2,000/yr - and that he's been with the same carrier for all 18 years and that's why it's so low.
> 
> If I cold find a policy that cheap I think I'd take it out even without driving Uber Black... just to cover me for X and SELECT.


You see? Very expensive. I'm happy paying the $1.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 26, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> I have had quotes between $12,000 & $24,000 for full commercial coverage (same company).
> 
> Now a different company is offering me personal (full coverage), and commercial (comprehensive, collision & medical) for $1115/yr. Uber will cover the commercial liability.
> 
> UNS


wow! thats a price of a good down payment on a house.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MarkR said:


> You see? Very expensive. I'm happy paying the $1.


You're not a business person - you're a hobbyist.
$2,000 ($166/mo) is DIRT CHEAP for general liability insurance.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

MarkR said:


> wow! thats a price of a good down payment on a house.


For me I could buy a used car ($20k) w/17,000 miles on it from a dealership. The house is paid off.​


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

UberNorthStar: Commercial insurance is not required for driving UberX. As you are in the US, you are fully covered by commercial insurance provided by James River. This is paid by the $1 Safe Rides Fee. For $1 a trip, you get commercial insurance worth in your words "$12,000 to $14,000 per year" .

Some insurers will cover you under personal insurance if UberX consists of less than 50% of your miles. More than half of UberX drivers are part time and fit in this category.

Other insurance companies may offer specific ridesharing insurance, you will need to contact your insurer.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

glados said:


> Commercial insurance is not required for driving UberX. As you are in the US, you are fully covered by commercial insurance provided by James River. This is paid by the $1 Safe Rides Fee. For $1 a trip, you get commercial insurance worth in your words "$12,000 to $14,000 per year" .
> 
> Some insurers will cover you under personal insurance


I notice you are in Australia. Allow me to shed some light on Uber's insurance policy.

*My insurance agent* reviewed the Uber insurance policy (aka James Rivers) for me. These were his comments.
1. There is nothing in the JR policy to cover damage to my vehicle or my medical expenses. [Commercial (bodily, collision, comprehensive)] 
2. Forget the contingency clause. If my insurance learned I was driving for-hire, they would cancel my auto insurance immediately. (So, I am not driving yet.)
3. The JR policy is *liability insurance *to cover my passengers' medical and property damage expenses, the "other guy's" medical and property damage. The $1M umbrella policy I consider to be a CYA for *Uber incase it is sued.
*
Here is the link to both the $1M umbrella policy & the liability coverage.
https://uber-regulatory-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/insurance/COIs/MI.pdf

In TX most if not all policies carry an exclusion of coverage for vehicles-for-hire. This includes personal vehicles used for pizza delivery, newspaper delivery, and transporting people for payment, whether payment is immediate or a week later through a third party.

This week I am purchasing insurance that will give me commercial bodily injury and commercial collision/comprehensive coverage as well as coverage for my personal driving. This policy will definitely cover me when the app is on and I am awaiting a ping -- the gray area.

Many people in the States are driving on their personal policy not realizing they are committing insurance fraud by not letting their insurance company know they are driving on the Uber app. Should they need to file an Uber-related claim, their insurance could be cancelled with their name blacklisted for reference to other insurance companies. 

Glados, if I could get away with $1/fare for complete commercial coverage, I would. As my mum used to tell me, "Beware of something that sounds too good to be true."


----------



## glados (May 23, 2015)

UberNorthStar: The James River insurance policy differs on a state by state level. My understanding is that in many markets, the James River insurance policy covers comprehensive while a ride is active, however it may not apply for your state.

While you are waiting for a ping, you are not engaging in vehicle for hire activities and your personal insurance policy may apply. Since you have not accepted the ride, *you do not need to declare your Uber affiliation*. This is not "insurance fraud".


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

glados said:


> While you are waiting for a ping, you are not engaging in vehicle for hire activities and your personal insurance policy may apply. Since you have not accepted the ride, *you do not need to declare your Uber affiliation*. This is not "insurance fraud".


Stop posting blatantly false and misleading information. Personal Car insurance policies do not provide any coverage for any phase of Driving for Uber. In fact, personal car insurance policies explicitly prohibit "vehicle for hire" activities.

That is why, in all of the ~15 US States that have passed TNC Laws this year, it's required that TNCs provide or Drivers procure Primary 'App On' Liability coverage.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> UberNorthStar: Commercial insurance is not required for driving UberX. As you are in the US, you are fully covered by commercial insurance provided by James River. This is paid by the $1 Safe Rides Fee. For $1 a trip, you get commercial insurance worth in your words "$12,000 to $14,000 per year" .
> 
> Some insurers will cover you under personal insurance if UberX consists of less than 50% of your miles. More than half of UberX drivers are part time and fit in this category.
> 
> Other insurance companies may offer specific ridesharing insurance, you will need to contact your insurer.


Stop lying to people here. Uber's policy specifically excludes drivers coverage for collision except where required by law (which is nowhere I know of).
And absolutely NO auto insurance policy in the US will cover a driver using their car for any 'for hire' purpose.

Your posts have crossed the line from just being annoying to being dangerous and I hope the mods take notice and boot your ass out of here.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

glados said:


> While you are waiting for a ping, you are not engaging in vehicle for hire activities and your personal insurance policy may apply. Since you have not accepted the ride, *you do not need to declare your Uber affiliation*. This is not "insurance fraud".


You might want to read #1 on https://uberpeople.net/threads/car-insurance-letter.34870/

Good night!


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

It all depends on what state you're in.

State Farm won't drop:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/car-accident.33578/#post-439798

And James River making good on a claim:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-insurance-claim.29458/#post-381855

I'm not saying these are definitive. Certainly YMMV.

Back to the point of this thread, there are no Alaskans making money driving for Uber there now.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

glados said:


> And finally... one of the reasons many riders use Uber is because there is *no tipping*.


So what?
One of the many reasons people shoplift is because there's no sales tax.
Does that make it right?


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

Doesn't matter. No Uber in Alaska. No tipping. No income. No Uber.


----------



## UberSneak (Dec 31, 2014)

glados said:


> 1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.
> 
> 2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.
> 
> ...


I'm from Los Angeles, so my response to you is based on my market. 
You are almost completely wrong about what you're saying. I would LOVE to see Uber pull out of California; what is probably one of their biggest market. Or at least, I would love to see if they have the stones to do it. Yea they did it in Alaska, that's a tiny market, and they've done it in other small markets. But they have yet to pull out of a major market (to my knowledge).

If the court decides that drivers were classified wrong, then Uber will owe certain drivers money, and the outcome afterwards will be one of three things; (1) Uber will pull out of the market, (2) Uber will treat us like employees and do the things you mentioned, or (3) they will change their policies to better reflect an independent contractor model. 
1. If it's a small market, Uber would easily pull out. Whether they would do that in a major market remains to be seen; but I doubt they would.
2. Do you really think Uber wants to do actual work? Seriously? Lol. They would have to hire people to manage drivers, set the schedules, etc. All the things you mentioned would require actual work on Uber's part. 
3. This option is the most likely, and what would benefit the drivers more. Idk what this would look like, but it can only be better than what we currently have.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Anyone else skimming Glados' posts singing "blah blah blah" in their head?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberSneak said:


> They would have to hire people to manage drivers, set the schedules, etc.


This is becoming a an Urban Myth and it's not true...
and glados continues to repeat it.

The issue before the courts is NOT about job duties or job descriptions (although those are *part* of what are presented as evidence).
What is before the courts is worker CLASSIFICATION.

If Uber continues to lose these challenges to how it classifies drivers and drivers are deemed by the courts to be 'employees',
Uber will not be required to change anything about how drivers schedule themselves or how drivers do their jobs.
Uber COULD do that.

Uber COULD publish an employee handbook detailing policies and procedures.
Uber COULD require a min number of hours or limit the hours a driver could work (to eliminate overtime).
Uber COULD implement regular performance reviews of drivers...
There are a whole host of things Uber *COULD* do if the courts rule that driver are employees...

But, the only things that *Uber would be REQUIRED *to do are:

*Keep a completed W4 on file* for each employee (IRS tax withholding form)
*Keep a completed I9 on file *for each employee  (ICE form for eligibility to work in the US)
*Withhold any required sate and federal income tax* from the employee (and remit that to the fed/state)
Pay one half of each employee's *Social Security/Medicare* tax (7.5%)
Pay appropriate state and federal *unemployment insurance* premiums for each employee
*Pay appropriate Workers Compensation* insurance premiums for each employee
*as required by the ACA, Provide health insurance options* to all employees who work more than 30 (I think) hours/wk


----------



## ubercurious (Dec 24, 2014)

@glados you really are naive .... you spout spin and bullshit from a "theoretical" or textbook viewpoint.

You make broad sweeping statements without backing them up with real life experience as a. UBER X Driver... the only reference point i have read that you have ever given is Uber Web sites, Uber financed surveys, and general Uber propaganda.... and yet when others post counter opinions and use media surveys ...you dismiss them as biased and weighted to give the desired outcome. ...

You , young lady, are akin to a religious zealot that quotes extracts from doctrine "as if it is fact" ....

Just ask a Scientologist, or a Moonie, or a Jim Jones devotee, or a Westboro Baptist Hate Church member.....they all have something in common with you ... blind, misguded faith in "the word of the leader"


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There are a whole host of things Uber *COULD* do if the courts rule that driver are employees...


OR Uber could work with lawyers representing the drivers to make the agreement more beneficial to the driver as an IC.

1. Allow us to be represented as a group by an outside agency to be sure the agreement is in the ICs' best interest. U has its lawyers for its representation.
2. No discouraging of tipping by U in any way, shape, or form. To reverse previous messages to pax, U will put a statement on rider's app that "Tip is not included.".
3. Rates/fees per mile/min are to be _set no less than _75% of the average local _major _taxi cab companies in each city.
4. U drops its commission to no more than 15% on all platforms. No more raising commissionson for high platforms to make up for low rates on X & XL platforms.
5. If U keeps commission at 20%, U is to pay each driver 18¢ per mile on the # of miles clocked on each driver's pay period while driving to pax until pax is at destination or trip is ended to pay 1/2 the cost of running a car or pay for full commercial coverage for each driver.
5. ICs will not be limited to driving just on U app. IC's outside _legal _business is of no concern to U.
6. Ratings on drivers will cease. If a rider has a comment on a rider, U will provide a B.I.T.C.H. link for such.
B-eautiful
I-ntelligent
T-alented
C-harming
H-elpful

No comments? The driver is good to go.


----------

