# How is this New Surge Policy not the main thing we are talking about?



## RedSteel

It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us

They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.

The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF

Your app was online
You dont reject a ride
You don't go offline
You don't change your ride preferences
You dont cancel a ride

If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus

It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks

It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined

But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)

Uber is only changing it for us drivers

The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves

So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%

Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples

They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.

Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips

This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


----------



## Awesomeness101

If if sucks like I'm thinking it will this new surge will essentially be the end of Uber for me.


----------



## IERide

Yup.. Uber fought back against all the drivers ‘gaming’ surge, and the drivers have lost..
Now the drivers will figure out ways to game this new system for a few extra pennies, and Uber will fight back, making it even worse..
Before you know it, all the “career” drivers will be gone and all that will be left is “side gig” drivers.. Just like Uber wants..

As to your question “why isnt this the main thing we are talking about?” - Because talking about the weather doesn’t change it.


----------



## AllGold

IERide said:


> As to your question "why isnt this the main thing we are talking about?" - Because talking about the weather doesn't change it.


Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


----------



## IERide

AllGold said:


> Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


Nope..
But it's as hard to control as one..


----------



## RedSteel

IERide said:


> Yup.. Uber fought back against all the drivers 'gaming' surge, and the drivers have lost..
> Now the drivers will figure out ways to game this new system for a few extra pennies, and Uber will fight back, making it even worse..
> Before you know it, all the "career" drivers will be gone and all that will be left is "side gig" drivers.. Just like Uber wants..
> 
> As to your question "why isnt this the main thing we are talking about?" - Because talking about the weather doesn't change it.


The crazy thing is they shouldn't have cared if we gamed the surge.....created a surge by waiting offline. They made more money if we did.....now they see a way to take most of the surge rates for themselves


----------



## Uber's Guber

AllGold said:


> Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


Can a large corporation be controlled by ants?


----------



## emdeplam

RedSteel said:


> The crazy thing is they shouldn't have cared if we gamed the surge.....created a surge by waiting offline. They made more money if we did.....now they see a way to take most of the surge rates for themselves


You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.

Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


----------



## Garbage Plate

It's not getting a lot of posts because it's become expected. First upfront pricing, then they raise rider rates while paying us the same. Last week they increase the booking fee by a quarter, now they change surge pricing. Each time they make more, we make the same or less. They treat their drivers like crap , and will continue to do so as long as they have enough drivers. We can complain all day and night but until another company that treats us better comes along, and drivers begin to switch, that won't change. Unfortunately Lyft is not that company right now, and no one else is gaining much ground either so we're screwed for now.


----------



## JMlyftuber

If this is similar to Lyft's new bonus system it will be good in my market. Surge here is usually pretty low, 2x max except holidays and half the rides are short.


----------



## tomatopaste

RedSteel said:


> 1) I know the Mods like to move threads but this subject is so important that I am hoping they will leave it here. I peruse this forum, but not every single subsection so I had ZERO clue this is happening and I would bet others here didn't know either
> 
> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed
> 
> Please miss leave this here...... people need to know and be prepared


Uber will keep bending over drivers as long as drivers keep bending over. From a pure self-respect aspect, how can any driver accept this? Drivers should 1. not drive if Uber implements this, and 2. let every pax know that the 4x surge they're paying is all going to Uber.


----------



## Cdub2k

Ants are too busy workin for the queen at base rate to worry about mathematics.


----------



## jgiun1

I'm not much of a sweater when it comes to things out of your control....I feel if it becomes to bad, I'll seek full time employment and do the side gig Uber Lyft.

The day I see 75% of a fare consistently taken from every ride, I'll quit the rideshare for good.

So many people here got scared when the self drivers were brought here. I was always asked by passengers in early stages "what will you do when they take over the city".... refer to paragraph one for answer I gave.

I was drawn into it more for the flexibility and I would miss that more than ever. 

It would be nice to go back to the days when I never looked or cared what a gallon of gas costs.....lol


----------



## henrygates

tomatopaste said:


> Uber will keep bending over drivers as long as drivers keep bending over. From a pure self-respect aspect, how can any driver accept this? Drivers should 1. not drive if Uber implements this, and 2. let every pax know that the 4x surge they're paying is all going to Uber.


Isn't Uber threatening to deactivate drivers who discuss their pay with pax? Full circle.

I don't get many surges because I don't do late nights and there too many drivers, but the new surge as explained is cr*p. Uber isn't going to make it in the long run.

The only drivers left in a few years will be smelly homeless people in rented 20 year old hatchbacks.


----------



## tomatopaste

jgiun1 said:


> I'm not much of a sweater when it comes to things out of your control


That's just it, it's 100 percent in driver's control. That's like saying there's no point in voting cause my vote doesn't count. Drivers need to take a stand and let their voices be heard. Talk with every driver you know and every driver you don't know.



henrygates said:


> Isn't Uber threatening to deactivate drivers who discuss their pay with pax?


Are they? That should go of real well with regulators in California. Truth is, Uber is hanging by a thread. Uber's going to have to treat drivers as true contractors in California and other states will soon follow suit.

Uber can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Not only can contractors talk about whatever they want to talk about, contractors set their own price.


----------



## Kodyhead

Awesomeness101 said:


> If if sucks like I'm thinking it will this new surge will essentially be the end of Uber for me.


It would be the end of you, not uber lol


----------



## Hans GrUber

The problem isn't the system, which makes sense to me. It's pretty crazy to think how many people would actually have the resources to justify a 3+x ld trip. So, I don't think that the new policy is that hard to swallow, even if it sucks for us. The problem is that these shits are still charging the multiplier surge rates to the pax. It's disgusting.


----------



## 1.5xorbust

The huge majority of ants won’t see the change as any big deal because they typically accept mostly base rate trips anyway. Plus everyone knows that it’s much easier to add than it is to multiply. That’s the positive spin that Uber will place on the program for the multiplication challenged drivers.


----------



## tomatopaste

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


They serve the customer? And how exactly do they do that? With your car and your labor.

They need critical mass = they need to undercut the competition by paying drivers peanuts then steadily take a larger percentage of the take from drivers.

The surge game was created by Uber knowing business pax will gladly pay 2x surge cause that's what the rate should be in the first place. The surge game allows Uber to also cater to hipsters going to Starbucks who should never be in the system to begin with.

Uber cares deeply for the pax. Really? And how does a 94 percent annual driver turnover rate translate into caring deeply for the pax? How do crappier and crappier cars and crappier and crappier drivers translate into caring deeply for the pax?


----------



## touberornottouber

Don't forget that they know where 99% of trips are going. They have the pickup address and the destination address prior to sending you the ping. It would be simple for the algorithm to see that you have a surge due and then give you a highly undesireable minimum fare ride 23 minutes and 10 miles away for your next ride. Then you get to drive 23 minutes to earn that extra $1 surge. If you decline that 23 minute away ride then you lose your surge and Uber gets to pocket even more.

Also this is a "technology company". Remember that it would be trivial for them to program in a cap per hour, day, week, month, or even year for your earnings. They know the estimated value of every single ride they give to you. For all we know we each have an entry in a database somewhere with a certain set of numbers which dictate how much we are "allowed" to earn per hour, day, week, or month on the platform. Think they wouldn't do that? I'm not so sure anymore....


----------



## tomatopaste

emdeplam said:


> Uber cares deeply for the pax


Uber cares about one thing and one thing only. Polishing this turd just enough to go public so they can unload this train wreck on a bunch of clueless dupes.


----------



## henrygates

tomatopaste said:


> Uber can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Not only can contractors talk about whatever they want to talk about, contractors set their own price.


We aren't contractors. I've done a lot of freelance work and I've never, ever agreed to perform a job without having any idea of what the scope of the work is or what the end pay is. Until I started *working for* Uber.

Uber may call us independent contractors in the strictest "technical" sense, but we aren't really.


----------



## dctcmn

henrygates said:


> We aren't contractors. I've done a lot of freelance work and I've never, ever agreed to perform a job without having any idea of what the scope of the work is or what the end pay is. Until I started *working for* Uber.
> 
> Uber may call us independent contractors in the strictest "technical" sense, but we aren't really.


Have you worked as an IC in the surface transportation industry?

Because Uber's setup is not really that different. There are plenty of blind and double blind shipments and many times the driver only knows the base rate (sometimes they don't even know the fuel surcharge when they begin the trip), but not necessarily the exact mileage or accessorial charges involved in the shipment when they accept the trip.


----------



## henrygates

dctcmn said:


> Have you worked as an IC in the surface transportation industry?
> 
> Because Uber's setup is not really that different. There are plenty of blind and double blind shipments and many times the driver only knows the base rate (sometimes they don't even know the fuel surcharge when they begin the trip), but not necessarily the exact mileage or accessorial charges involved in the shipment when they accept the trip.


No, I haven't, so I'm totally unfamiliar with the rest of the industry. I really assumed truck drivers knew exactly where they were going and how much they were being paid for each trip.


----------



## Drivincrazy

If airlines can charge a temporary fuel charge as independent contractors, why can't we? Otherwise, we are employees. I think Uber being sued in every state's court system and Federal courts is going to be an ongoing process. We should be certain that it is so. What this is ending up being is so far from the original agreement of 10/1/15; it is certainly a breach of contract. All County, State and Federal district and general attorneys should tie Uber's hands to the original agreement as agreed to and as advertised to draw in drivers based on advertised earnings. Uber...your greed might just be your undoing. I hope so.


----------



## emdeplam

Drivincrazy said:


> If airlines can charge a temporary fuel charge as independent contractors, why can't we? Otherwise, we are employees. I think Uber being sued in every state's court system and Federal courts is going to be an ongoing process. We should be certain that it is so. What this is ending up being is so far from the original agreement of 10/1/15; it is certainly a breach of contract. All County, State and Federal district and general attorneys should tie Uber's hands to the original agreement as agreed to and as advertised to draw in drivers based on advertised earnings. Uber...your greed might just be your undoing. I hope so.


Eventually a bunch of lawyers will get a big check, drivers will likely get a coupon for a free Happy Meals or oil change and by then Uber will have SDC's or it will be toast


----------



## 1.5xorbust

Soon the only way to make any net income will be in DF mode to and from your real job. That’s the way Uber probably wanted the business model to work anyway.


----------



## Coachman

The only thing I ever ask for in those driver surveys is higher pay. That's the one thing they won't give us. I just don't give a rat's ass about any of the other changes or app improvements they made.


----------



## JMlyftuber

1.5xorbust said:


> The huge majority of ants won't see the change as any big deal because they typically accept mostly base rate trips anyway. Plus everyone knows that it's much easier to add than it is to multiply. That's the positive spin that Uber will place on the program for the multiplication challenged drivers.


I can only speak for the Lyft system, I don't know if Uber's test works the same but with Lyft you need to be located in a certain zone to get a bonus ranging from $4.50 to $16. Mine average $10. Once you see the bonus it will be there for ~15 min. It's based on your location not pax. Because I rarely see a surge >2x and most trips here are <5 miles the Lyft system is better for the driver. I wait about 30 minutes to get a request and gross $15, with a surge I could get ~$18 if I got 3 surge rides in one hour, but I would put a lot more mileage into it.
Obviously this is extremely market dependent, and regardless of which is better for the driver, charging passenger the higher rate while paying the driver on the lower rate is purely despicable.



Coachman said:


> The only thing I ever ask for in those driver surveys is higher pay. That's the one thing they won't give us. I just don't give a rat's ass about any of the other changes or app improvements they made.


Agreed. The app works just fine. They could only maintain a bugfix team for security purposes and app development would cost very little. They like to constantly change the app because it gives the appearance of doing lots of costly work while costing many multiples less than a significant increase in minimum earnings would cost.

The insurance is really the only thing besides driver pay I want them to keep putting big money into.


----------



## dirtylee

tomatopaste said:


> Uber cares about one thing and one thing only. Polishing this turd just enough to go public so they can unload this train wreck on a bunch of clueless dupes.


It's working. 
Uber 2018 Q1 only posted a loss of 300m. 
If they can maintain that or lower, they should have enough cash for 4 years.



henrygates said:


> No, I haven't, so I'm totally unfamiliar with the rest of the industry. I really assumed truck drivers knew exactly where they were going and how much they were being paid for each trip.


Truck drivers that own their own shit do. Employees in company trucks might not. The only blind shit might be sealed cargo.


----------



## AllGold

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


All of us here, except maybe the most naive, know you're a shill.

So keep spewing your B.S. because most of the time it's pretty amusing.


----------



## tomatopaste

dirtylee said:


> Uber 2018 Q1 only posted a loss of 300m.
> If they can maintain that or lower, they should have enough cash for 4 years.


So the underwriter's sales pitch is going to be: hey, Uber only lost 1.2 billion this year. Sure Waymo's starting to take all Uber's customers but Dara's come up will a genius new surge policy and a thing called HyperPool.


----------



## Shakur

Just means more decline / cancels lol

Talking about “gaming” the system 

It’s not a game when you decline non-profitable/inconvenient rides, for ones that are profitable and convenient....


----------



## whiskeyboat

Surge game will simply reverse, short rides now good, long rides now bad.


----------



## Wonkytonk

touberornottouber said:


> Also this is a "technology company". Remember that it would be trivial for them to program in a cap per hour, day, week, month, or even year for your earnings. They know the estimated value of every single ride they give to you. For all we know we each have an entry in a database somewhere with a certain set of numbers which dictate how much we are "allowed" to earn per hour, day, week, or month on the platform. Think they wouldn't do that? I'm not so sure anymore....


I'm pretty sure they're doing some of this. I have a daily financial goal, and making it was pretty straightforward initially, but what I found over time is that as I approached that goal they started feeding me pings for short rides typically to the point it would take me three more rides to meet my daily goal.

It could be coincidence I guess, but the fact I don't trust uber, or lyft worth a damn makes me look at them suspiciously.



tomatopaste said:


> Uber cares about one thing and one thing only. Polishing this turd just enough to go public so they can unload this train wreck on a bunch of clueless dupes.


Yeah, I keep wondering what the hell are they going to do once they go public and they're going to have to rein in their profligate spending and they're forced into a fiscally responsible budget that takes into account proper compensation for the people earning them a lot of the money they've been mismanaging up to that point.


----------



## Uber's Guber

tomatopaste said:


> Uber cares about one thing and one thing only. Polishing this turd just enough to go public so they can unload this train wreck on a bunch of clueless dupes.





Wonkytonk said:


> Yeah, I keep wondering what the hell are they going to do once they go public and they're going to have to rein in their profligate spending and they're forced into a fiscally responsible budget that takes into account proper compensation for the people earning them a lot of the money they've been mismanaging up to that point.


Uber is just trying to ride it out until the self-driving cars can take hold.
It may be difficult for some to envision, but there is investor foreseeable-worthiness in companies that lose money upfront while it waits for further technology developments to catch up.
To reiterate: if somebody has finalized the ability to pump out driverless cars first, be it Toyota, Volvo, Tesla, Google, etc, etc, they will want what Uber has, and that is their large database of app-bearing Uber pax. Uber will win whether or not they are first to arrive on the scene with mass-production of driverless vehicles, or somebody else chooses to buy them out.
Mass numbers of driverless cars on the roads are sooner than many want to believe. FYI: there are currently about 20 viable cash-sustaining companies that are faithfully pushing the technology.
And yes, I will be purchasing the stock when it becomes available. The shares will soar when the technology finally arrives.


----------



## himynameis

When it hits my market I'm done. An so will alot of drivers. Uber went to far this time!


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uber's Guber said:


> To reiterate: if somebody has finalized the ability to pump out driverless cars first, be it Toyota, Volvo, Tesla, Google, etc, etc, they will want what Uber has, and that is their large database of app-bearing Uber pax. Uber will win whether or not they are first to arrive on the scene with mass-production of driverless vehicles, or somebody else chooses to buy them out.
> Mass numbers of driverless cars on the roads are sooner than many want to believe. FYI: there are currently about 20 viable cash-sustaining companies that are faithfully pushing the technology.


I don't know, seems to me right now driverless technology is exceeding the ability of society to deal with it. And by that I mean most people aren't even considering it yet. And as far as the ones who are, I mean it's not that the concept of driverless is so far fetched that it's not within the realm of possibility for most folks, but I think it's a bit of stretch from the realm of possibility to accepting the reality for the individual.

As an example I can see it coming, and I can see the pace of development is accelerating, and I can even see the necessity at some point, but I'm not yet willing to accept it as a viable transportation option for me personally.

I guess I'm wondering what level of reticence among the general population will crop up, and how that affects the acceptance of the technology, and the short term viability of these companies. I'm sure they will survive, or some will. I'm not quite as certain uber's position will be regardless its user base. I think that could all go away pretty much overnight when it only takes a few seconds to download and activate a competitor's app.


----------



## Uber's Guber

Wonkytonk said:


> I don't know, seems to me right now driverless technology is exceeding the ability of society to deal with it. And by that I mean most people aren't even considering it yet. And as far as the ones who are, I mean it's not that the concept of driverless is so far fetched that it's not within the realm of possibility for most folks, but I think it's a bit of stretch from the realm of possibility to accepting the reality for the individual. As an example I can see it coming, and I can see the pace of development is accelerating, and I can even see the necessity at some point, but I'm not yet willing to accept it as a viable transportation option for me personally. I guess I'm wondering what level of reticence among the general population will crop up, and how that affects the acceptance of the technology, and the short term viability of these companies. I'm sure they will survive, or some will. I'm not quite as certain uber's position will be regardless its user base. I think that could all go away pretty much overnight when it only takes a few seconds to download and activate a competitor's app.


My great-great grandmother had reservations about the horseless carriage. My great-grandmother had reservations about ATM cards. My grandmother had reservations about cell phones. My mother had reservations about computers. The billions before them grew into the technology without batting an eye.


----------



## tomatopaste

Uber's Guber said:


> Uber is just trying to ride it out until the self-driving cars can take hold.
> It may be difficult for some to envision, but there is investor foreseeable-worthiness in companies that lose money upfront while it waits for further technology developments to catch up.
> To reiterate: if somebody has finalized the ability to pump out driverless cars first, be it Toyota, Volvo, Tesla, Google, etc, etc, they will want what Uber has, and that is their large database of app-bearing Uber pax. Uber will win whether or not they are first to arrive on the scene with mass-production of driverless vehicles, or somebody else chooses to buy them out.
> Mass numbers of driverless cars on the roads are sooner than many want to believe. FYI: there are currently about 20 viable cash-sustaining companies that are faithfully pushing the technology.
> And yes, I will be purchasing the stock when it becomes available. The shares will soar when the technology finally arrives.


Problem for Uber is their self-driving program is a joke, meant only to fool investors. Waymo will be the only game in town for a year and they want nothing to do with Uber. But even if they did, Uber has nothing to offer. The value of Uber's customer base I believe is overblown. Pax download the Waymo app and they're now Waymo customers and no longer Uber customers. There's no loyalty in the taxi business.


----------



## serlailai

Uber's Guber said:


> Uber is just trying to ride it out until the self-driving cars can take hold.
> It may be difficult for some to envision, but there is investor foreseeable-worthiness in companies that lose money upfront while it waits for further technology developments to catch up.
> To reiterate: if somebody has finalized the ability to pump out driverless cars first, be it Toyota, Volvo, Tesla, Google, etc, etc, they will want what Uber has, and that is their large database of app-bearing Uber pax. Uber will win whether or not they are first to arrive on the scene with mass-production of driverless vehicles, or somebody else chooses to buy them out.
> Mass numbers of driverless cars on the roads are sooner than many want to believe. FYI: there are currently about 20 viable cash-sustaining companies that are faithfully pushing the technology.
> And yes, I will be purchasing the stock when it becomes available. The shares will soar when the technology finally arrives.


I agree that's what they're trying to do, but I don't believe they will get theirs to market in time. Google's slef-driving cars seem to be doing better, and when Google entered the ride share with their cars, having that Google name on their cars will count for a lot in getting people to trust the cars, and use them. Who is really loyal to Uber right now? And if Google actually launched their own ride share company, they would be able to do so with relative ease, having a lot of data of rideshare customers (lots of us use Google maps/Waymo), better navigation, etc.


----------



## John Campbell

Uber's Guber said:


> My great-great grandmother had reservations about the horseless carriage. My great-grandmother had reservations about ATM cards. My grandmother had reservations about cell phones. My mother had reservations about computers. The billions before them grew into the technology without batting an eye.


We all have great-great-grandparents. The real question is how are these grandparents would feel if they found out their descendant is a mere Uber driver soon to be replaced by a machine. Makes me kind of sad.


----------



## 1.5xorbust

tomatopaste said:


> Uber cares about one thing and one thing only. Polishing this turd just enough to go public so they can unload this train wreck on a bunch of clueless dupes.


They better polish the turd faster because I see their value decreasing on a daily basis.


----------



## buyanet

New
My E-Mail to the Feedback contact form for this new surge:

"This update is the worst thing that could ever happen to the Late Night Bar Scene / Weekend Drivers. For one, you do mention that you MAY earn more for longer trips, but fail to explain, which leads me to believe if you get a lets say $7 surge added, that's just what you'll get.

Every Friday/Saturday evening, surges go up to 3.0-3.5. Just last night on a 3.3 surge, a 22 minute (14.74 miles) ride netted me $45.59 (Uber made $19.30). With this new Surge System, that exact same ride in a (example) $7 surge zone, would have netted me $20.81. Now I am guessing the rider doesn't pay any less, which would have resulted in Uber being paid roughly $25 more, so, around $45, and I would have gotten $20.81. How ridiculous is this? This Surge Update will be the end of the late night Fri/Sat Party crowd drivers. I cannot imagine that you've "gotten together" with fellow drivers to brainstorm this and everyone came to the conclusion this is a great idea."

By the way, here's the link to provide feedback for this new system: https://uber.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cxdAkElygKNd8LX


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uber's Guber said:


> My great-great grandmother had reservations about the horseless carriage. My great-grandmother had reservations about ATM cards. My grandmother had reservations about cell phones. My mother had reservations about computers. The billions before them grew into the technology without batting an eye.


The same can be said about the thousands and thousands of ideas that didn't pan out.

I'm thinking they make a ton on the ipo and bail, a lot of them anyway.



tomatopaste said:


> Pax download the Waymo app and they're now Waymo customers and no longer Uber customers. There's no loyalty in the taxi business.


Yeah that's what I was getting at. When it's so easy to install an app what's the incentive for a third party with a driverless solution ready to roll to partner with Uber.

Seems like it would make a lot more sense to take it to the public extolling the virtues of driverless cars over driven cars with all of the pesky hassles of those crappy Uber drivers Pax have had to deal with. And then if that doesn't work consider partnering with either Uber or lyft.

While I don't know how the public will accept driverless cars seems to me that's the better bet. It also seems to me those companies are going to have to get out in front of that technology and start selling it to the public as safe and desirable. Something Uber is going to have a difficult time with considering its got a s?it ton of drivers it has to keep on the hook until its technology is ready.

It can't really rely on third parties as a solution. Plus there is the fact Uber killed a person with its driverless tech so it's going to have a hard sell on how safe it's tech is, and no doubt it's competitors will remind the public.


----------



## tomatopaste

Wonkytonk said:


> The same can be said about the thousands and thousands of ideas that didn't pan out.
> 
> I'm thinking they make a ton on the ipo and bail, a lot of them anyway.
> 
> Yeah that's what I was getting at. When it's so easy to install an app what's the incentive for a third party with a driverless solution ready to roll to partner with Uber.
> 
> Seems like it would make a lot more sense to take it to the public extolling the virtues of driverless cars over driven cars with all of the pesky hassles of those crappy Uber drivers Pax have had to deal with. And then if that doesn't work consider partnering with either Uber or lyft.
> 
> While I don't know how the public will accept driverless cars seems to me that's the better bet. It also seems to me those companies are going to have to get out in front of that technology and start selling it to the public as safe and desirable. Something Uber is going to have a difficult time with considering its got a s?it ton of drivers it has to keep on the hook until its technology is ready.
> 
> It can't really rely on third parties as a solution. Plus there is the fact Uber killed a person with its driverless tech so it's going to have a hard sell on how safe it's tech is, and no doubt it's competitors will remind the public.


Waymo has partnered with Lyft in the initial stages to handle rides outside of the geofenced area. They want nothing to do with Uber. Lyft is also working with other self-driving partners such as Aptiv in Las Vegas where they are already operating a self-driving taxi service with a human backup driver.



1.5xorbust said:


> They better polish the turd faster because I see their value decreasing on a daily basis.


Yup. In addition to self-driving cars, the California Supreme Court ruling that will make Uber classify drivers as employees or change how they do business has Uber hanging by a thread.


----------



## Sl0re10

JMlyftuber said:


> If this is similar to Lyft's new bonus system it will be good in my market. Surge here is usually pretty low, 2x max except holidays and half the rides are short.


True for me too. I never have surges or primetime... I was avoiding shorties since they were under $3 with the upfront pricing. But; if they'd start being $5 something they might be worth it...


----------



## Wonkytonk

tomatopaste said:


> Waymo has partnered with Lyft ... Lyft is also working with other self-driving partners such as Aptiv in Las Vegas where they are already operating a self-driving taxi service with a human backup driver.


Wasn't aware of this. I do agree though especially given the fatality, and the god awful press uber has gotten why the hell would any company want to partner with them, though some still do for free ride promotions like Cocoa Cola.


----------



## henrygates

What's the point of having a self driving car if there's still a backup driver?


----------



## tomatopaste

henrygates said:


> What's the point of having a self driving car if there's still a backup driver?


Waymo is the only company operating without a backup driver but Google/Waymo started 5 to 6 years before everyone else.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Why isn't this a featured thread ?


----------



## Cableguynoe

uberdriverfornow said:


> Why isn't this a featured thread ?


Who says it isn't?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Cableguynoe said:


> Who says it isn't?


lol it was just made one


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RedSteel said:


> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined


Well, there's your answer. Surge will cease to be worth bothering with. Time to look for something else to do with the periods formerly known as surge.

We all knew that the terms of this Uber/Lyft gig can and do change any time with no notice. There's nothing written anywhere that getting good high paying rides on surge would continue forever. Yes, it's not a good thing for us that it's now coming to a close, but that's the way it is.

The water level has always been rising and will keep rising on this sinking ship. You can't stop the rising water; all you can do is abandon ship and find something better.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Cableguynoe said:


> uberdriverfornow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't this a featured thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who says it isn't?
Click to expand...

Oh you!


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Garbage Plate said:


> It's not getting a lot of posts because it's become expected. First upfront pricing, then they raise rider rates while paying us the same. Last week they increase the booking fee by a quarter, now they change surge pricing. Each time they make more, we make the same or less. They treat their drivers like crap , and will continue to do so as long as they have enough drivers. We can complain all day and night but until another company that treats us better comes along, and drivers begin to switch, that won't change. Unfortunately Lyft is not that company right now, and no one else is gaining much ground either so we're screwed for now.


Right, Uber needs to cut its losses or even show a profit in order to go public. They're already jacking up prices to pax; another easy way to increase their revenue is to take more from us on the high priced rides. It's totally logical and, heck, if I was a corporate-suited asshole, I'd do the same thing.


----------



## Wonkytonk

On this topic I don't chase surge, and what I've found over time is that I don't get surge rides unless there's something big going on in town. I also found that I don't need it to make my financial goal every day. I consider that I'm very lucky to be in that position, and if this goes through I do feel for other drivers that rely on it to earn enough to either earn a living, or earn enough to make driving worth while financially.

And while I think it's almost a certainty drivers won't unite to fight uber and lyft if as a group we decide to do that I'll be right in the middle of that.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Right, Uber needs to cut its losses or even show a profit in order to go public. They're already jacking up prices to pax; another easy way to increase their revenue is to take more from us on the high priced rides. It's totally logical and, heck, if I was a corporate-suited asshole, I'd do the same thing.


My assumption was that they would simply increase the incidence of surge. Surge is basically a built in revenue generating stream for uber after all. If they need more money all they have to do is increase the incidence of surge and presto bango more money in the corporate coffers.

But what's described here is a lot more sinister because they're still collecting the surge fares from the pax just not sharing it with drivers. Selfish ?astards.


----------



## tomatopaste

Wonkytonk said:


> On this topic I don't chase surge, and what I've found over time is that I don't get surge rides unless there's something big going on in town. I also found that I don't need it to make my financial goal every day. I consider that I'm very lucky to be in that position, and if this goes through I do feel for other drivers that rely on it to earn enough to either earn a living, or earn enough to make driving worth while financially.
> 
> And while I think it's almost a certainty drivers won't unite to fight uber and lyft if as a group we decide to do that I'll be right in the middle of that.
> 
> My assumption was that they would simply increase the incidence of surge. Surge is basically a built in revenue generating stream for uber after all. If they need more money all they have to do is increase the incidence of surge and presto bango more money in the corporate coffers.
> 
> But what's described here is a lot more sinister because they're still collecting the surge fares from the pax just not sharing it with drivers. Selfish ?astards.


All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it." You think the delete Uber campaign was big the last time. Strap in.


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

Let me play devils advocate for a moment.
1. How many of you are actually from a test market where this is happening?
2. If you are from one of these test (as I am) are you losing money weekly?
3. Is there a big difference between Uber taking more surge vs drivers who long haul from airports? Aren't they both trying to increase profitability?
4. Is it fare for a passenger to pay $250 more for a ride that costs $40? Some drivers see nothing wrong with that.

I'm in agreement with most that this seems unethical, illogical and unfair. But; (again playing devil's advocate) aren't we all in some way just like Uber?


----------



## TimyTim




----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it." You think the delete Uber campaign was big the last time. Strap in.


Wrong. 
Why does everyone think pax care what we make?
They want a ride. They could less if we're volunteers or if we're getting 100% of what they pay.


----------



## Wonkytonk

tomatopaste said:


> All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it." You think the delete Uber campaign was big the last time. Strap in.


I tried that. It has to be something more concrete, and simultaneously engaged in by a large group of drivers.

I used to bring up how uber was screwing them with their guaranteed upfront price, and what I noticed was my ratings took a nose dive so now I just smile and say oh sure, sure I love me some uber/(lyft) to pieces, it doesn't pay very well, but I love, love love the flexibility which allows me to [insert sad story here], but not every day is a good day, take today for example, today hasn't been the best day, but the tips are making up for it.

If I'm stuck playing the role of their entertainer they get to rate at the end of the ride then I'll be damned if I don't guide the discussion in my favor.


----------



## Cableguynoe

IMMA DRIVER said:


> But; (again playing devil's advocate) aren't we all in some way just like Uber?


Does that mean we should shut up and not complain?

A thief will still kill someone who steals from him.


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

Cableguynoe said:


> Wrong.
> Why does everyone think pax care what we make?
> They want a ride. They could less if we're volunteers or if we're getting 100% of what they pay.


Agree. Do you want every employee in Wal-Mart telling you how much less they make than the employee at Target? Or how Wal-Mart is screwing them? No. You simply want to buy toilet paper, shampoo and body wash.


----------



## Wonkytonk

IMMA DRIVER said:


> I'm in agreement with most that this seems unethical, illogical and unfair. But; (again playing devil's advocate) aren't we all in some way just like Uber?


As I said previously I don't get surge rides very often, but my take is if the surge is based on the lack of availability of drivers, and the rider accepts an increased fare to secure a scarce driver for their ride I don't see a moral issue with it in the least. The rider doesn't have to accept the increased fare they're presented with prior to accepting the ride. In fact all they have to do to receive a much lower fare is to wait for the most part a relatively short period of time for the rates to go back down.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> Wrong.
> Why does everyone think pax care what we make?
> They want a ride. They could less if we're volunteers or if we're getting 100% of what they pay.


1. I'm never wrong. 2. The reason it will work is because pax are already pissed when they have to pay surge, when they find out it's all going to Uber, they're doubly pissed.


----------



## 1.5xorbust

tomatopaste said:


> All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it." You think the delete Uber campaign was big the last time. Strap in.


I'm not sure the pax really give a rat's ass how much the drivers make. They might pay us lip service and tell us how horrible that is but they'll continue to use the service depending on how much they have to pay.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> 1. I'm never wrong. 2. The reason it will work is because pax are already pissed when they have to pay surge, when they find out it's all going to Uber, they're doubly pissed.


You're wrong.

My surge rides are always happy. 
Maybe they get upset the next day when they're sober and see the charge. 
But even on my best surge rides they've all been pleasant. 
So like I said, you're wrong. 
It won't work.


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

Wonkytonk said:


> As I said previously I don't get surge rides very often, but my take is if the surge is based on the lack of availability of drivers, and the rider accepts an increased fare to secure a scarce driver for their ride I don't see a moral issue with it in the least. The rider doesn't have to accept the increased fare they're presented with prior to accepting the ride. In fact all they have to do to receive a much lower fare is to wait for the most part a relatively short period of time for the rates to go back down.


The new surge system is still charging the passenger and they are accepting. So naturally you don't have a moral issue and neither do most drivers. The moral issue only comes into play with how little us drivers are pocketing.


----------



## tomatopaste

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Agree. Do you want every employee in Wal-Mart telling you how much less they make than the employee at Target? Or how Wal-Mart is screwing them? No. You simply want to buy toilet paper, shampoo and body wash.


There's a difference. With surge the pax already feels he's being screwed. When he finds out he's being screwed just so Uber can go public, no, that ain't gonna fly.


----------



## Retired Senior

touberornottouber said:


> Don't forget that they know where 99% of trips are going. They have the pickup address and the destination address prior to sending you the ping. It would be simple for the algorithm to see that you have a surge due and then give you a highly undesireable minimum fare ride 23 minutes and 10 miles away for your next ride. Then you get to drive 23 minutes to earn that extra $1 surge. If you decline that 23 minute away ride then you lose your surge and Uber gets to pocket even more.
> 
> Also this is a "technology company". Remember that it would be trivial for them to program in a cap per hour, day, week, month, or even year for your earnings. They know the estimated value of every single ride they give to you. For all we know we each have an entry in a database somewhere with a certain set of numbers which dictate how much we are "allowed" to earn per hour, day, week, or month on the platform. Think they wouldn't do that? I'm not so sure anymore....


Yeah, but unless some individual drivers are asshole buddies with the tech wizards, why would they care? Don't riders already have the power to pick and choose when they see our profile? Why would unknown tech staff or managers get involved with that?


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> There's a difference. With surge the pax already feels he's being screwed. When he finds out he's being screwed just so Uber can go public, no, that ain't gonna fly.


That makes no sense.

Where are your getting your info? Feedback from riders or from your head?

If someone feels a company is screwing them, you stop using their services. 
You don't demand that they pay their employees/contractors better.

This last post of yours is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in 2018.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> My surge rides are always happy.
> Maybe they get upset the next day when they're sober and see the charge.
> But even on my best surge rides they've all been pleasant.
> So like I said, you're wrong.
> It won't work.


As a pax if I find out I'm paying 3x surge and Uber is now pocketing all of it just so they can go public, I'm livid.


----------



## 1.5xorbust

tomatopaste said:


> There's a difference. With surge the pax already feels he's being screwed. When he finds out he's being screwed just so Uber can go public, no, that ain't gonna fly.


Pax don't give a rat's ass whether Uber goes public or not. Most of them think going public means urinating in public.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> As a pax if I find out I'm paying 3x surge and Uber is now pocketing all of it just so they can go public, I'm livid.


You say as a pax. But you're thinking as a driver.

So if you're paying 3x surge and they have no intention of going public then you're good?


----------



## IERide

Cableguynoe said:


> You're wrong.


But if he keeps pointlessly arguing about it here with anonymous strangers it will help make him feel as if he were right...


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> 1. I'm never wrong.


Your posts to likes ratio should be a clear indication that you're often wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> Where are your getting your info? Feedback from riders or from your head?
> 
> If someone feels a company is screwing them, you stop using their services.
> You don't demand that they pay their employees/contractors better.
> 
> This last post of yours is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in 2018.


Not all drivers can pull it off without coming off as just whining. I can. But then I'm me.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> Not all drivers can pull it off without coming off as just whining. I can. But then I'm me.


What kind of results have you had?

Dash cam footage?


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> Your posts to likes ratio should be a clear indication that you're often wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously.


If goal were to be liked, I wouldn't be on here.


----------



## Jay Dean

After 5,000 rides I honestly do not feel pax care where the money goes, how would I guess this, I think maybe 5 of those rides actually said my name during or a the end of the ride LOL, if they don't even care to know my.name, you think they care if I am fronting the maintence bill and Uber took too much money? Its just people really do not care at least in my market because it's a slim chance we will ever see each other again, then again my city is one huge party full of millennial entitled techies and everything is just an app to them


----------



## 1.5xorbust

Have Mr. Paste and Mr. Tupelo met before?


----------



## IERide

1.5xorbust said:


> Have Mr. Paste and Mr. Tupelo met before?


There are rumors these two are the same person..
Think about it.. Have you ever seen them posting at the same time??
Hmmmmm....


----------



## 1.5xorbust

IERide said:


> There are rumors these two are the same person..
> Think about it.. Have you ever seen them posting at the same time??
> Hmmmmm....


No I've never seen them together before.


----------



## Friendly Jack

AllGold said:


> Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


Yes, Uber Weather, I believe.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> Where are your getting your info? Feedback from riders or from your head?
> 
> If someone feels a company is screwing them, you stop using their services.
> You don't demand that they pay their employees/contractors better.
> 
> This last post of yours is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in 2018.


It could work. The fact that the standard response from Uber drivers is always to just bend over and take it without so much as a peep, I find to be pathetic.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> If goal were to be liked, I wouldn't be on here.


It's not about being liked.

If your posts aren't ridiculous, people will hit that like button.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> It's not about being liked.
> 
> If your posts aren't ridiculous, people will hit that like button.


And?


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> And?


And i proved my point that you're often wrong .
That's the and.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> And i proved my point that you're often wrong .
> That's the and.


And how did you do that? The determining factor on whether something is right or wrong is how many likes it gets?


----------



## Uber's Guber

tomatopaste said:


> All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it."


Pax don't care what the driver gets. They only care that they paid


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Wonkytonk said:


> But what's described here is a lot more sinister because they're still collecting the surge fares from the pax just not sharing it with drivers. Selfish ?astards.


If this were a case of a business partner trying to take another partner's share of the pie then, yes, that would be unethcal. But don't fall under the illusion that Uber is your partner, nor you theirs. To Uber, drivers are simply just another operating cost, no different from their electricity supplier or the landlords who lease them their offices.

The objective of any business is to maximise revenue and minimise costs, and that's all Uber is doing here. Taken in this way, Uber is doing nothing wrong. Any well-run business would try to minimise expenses.

Where Uber does do wrong is in propogating the lie that we are somehow their partners. But it doesn't take a lot to see right through that.


----------



## tomatopaste

Uber's Guber said:


> Pax don't care what the driver gets. They only care that they paid


Yes and in this instance they paid 3x's what they normally pay. How hard is it to pour a little salt in the wound? Even your avg Uber driver can pull that off.


----------



## Wonkytonk

The Gift of Fish said:


> The objective of any business is to maximise revenue and minimise costs, and that's all Uber is doing here. Taken in this way, Uber is doing nothing wrong. Any well-run business would try to minimise expenses.
> 
> Where Uber does do wrong is in propogating the lie that we are somehow their partners. But it doesn't take a lot to see right through that.


Their actions are too drastic and far too objectionable to be seen as acceptable normal business practice.

In fact the gig economy as a whole is falling under increased scrutiny. A quick search on regulating the gig economy returns over 170K results.

https://tinyurl.com/ybma8yvg


----------



## Mole

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


I just like crapped my pants laughing at what you wrote.


----------



## MothMan

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives.


The "surge game" may have driven PAX elsewhere but I fail to see why that matters here. Surge is not changing for the PAX. If surge is 7.1X, they are still paying 7.1X.


----------



## Tokichop

New surge is in OKC. Gave 6 rides with the new surge so far, it’s prettt much guaranteed long trips and the amount end up around 1.01 to 1.5 times. Last 2 rides (outta boredom and annoyance), I just asked the passengers to change destinations to a couple miles away (originally about 14 miles or so), dropped them off the app then went offline and drove them there. Both surge amount on these rides were around $4, found out each of them actually left me an extra $10 in tip (guess it still came out way cheaper than the original trips). 
Certainly not recommending this to anyone since there’s good chance you’ll make less than what you’re supposed to. Only reason I did was because I only give a few rides a week so I’ll risk making a couple bucks less if Uber loses more.
Happy Mem weekend guys!!


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

haven't bothered with surge in almost 2 years accept for days after a snow storm, would never work nights

stick to hotel addresses 30+ miles from the airport make them your queue or move by one

90+% of requests not worth it unless youre a preteen boy in the 1980s, let the 96% who fail deal with it


----------



## MothMan

The new surge is what you get when people want fairness and redistribution of wealth. Supposedly, Uber is not keeping more of surge (may or may not be true). Uber is trying to placate the drivers who complained about going into a 4.0X surge zone and ending up with no ride or a 1.8X ride. To do this, surge is being more evenly distributed to drivers. If you go into a surge zone, you are going to get a surge ride now. If you drive into the highest surge zone, you're next ride is going to be for the highest surge. But to do this, they are using the $ from what we love: Long ride with high surge.

Screenshots of the Charlotte rides that show PAX paying a ton of $ but the driver getting little were shared a lot. OTOH, screenshots of short surge rides in Charlotte that showed the driver being paid more than the PAX paid did not get much publicity.

The squeaky wheels got this change rolling. Hopefully we can be noisier and get this stopped but I'm not holding my breath since it got rolled out into more cities.


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

dctcmn said:


> Have you worked as an IC in the surface transportation industry?
> 
> Because Uber's setup is not really that different. There are plenty of blind and double blind shipments and many times the driver only knows the base rate (sometimes they don't even know the fuel surcharge when they begin the trip), but not necessarily the exact mileage or accessorial charges involved in the shipment when they accept the trip.


they know theyll be paid a legal wage lmao & be compensated over costs of gas for their time & mileage & none of their rates will be from 1965-1985 lol


----------



## socallaoc

tomatopaste said:


> Uber can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Not only can contractors talk about whatever they want to talk about, contractors set their own price.


It's common practice for corps to have ICs sign NDAs. As a "tech company" Uber and Lyft have already been doing this with contract techies working on their algos. I haven't looked myself to verify but it wouldnt surprise me one bit if driver pay schedules are already covered by some sort of NDA we clicked through when signing up.



Friendly Jack said:


> Yes, Uber Weather, I believe.


Hmm. I was about to say "no, god controls the weather." But then I remembered that Calvin Coolidge once said that the chief business of the American people is business. And that David Bowie and Trent Reznor once said that god is an American.

MY GOD. UBER IS GOD!!!?


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

Uber's Guber said:


> My great-great grandmother had reservations about the horseless carriage. My great-grandmother had reservations about ATM cards. My grandmother had reservations about cell phones. My mother had reservations about computers. The billions before them grew into the technology without batting an eye.


anyone who steps in a driverless car is a complete moron human meat bag, how many cars have recalls? how many software bugs & hacks, how many birds & bugs can block sensors, how many miles tested in snow rain fog?

there was a trade off between horses & cars what once took a day, weeks, or months can take literal hours, people were willing to accept the risk

billions of miles are completed per day safely, hundreds of millions of people distracted, inches apart going at high speeds you know how many die?

1-2 per day per state even if fully automated cars replaced EVERY car on the road that number will not decrease these cant defy physics, things will still run into them, run them off cliffs they wont magically hover & avoid things

how bout boats, motorcycles, trailers do actual adults want to be dependent on having electricity, internet, cell phone setvice, enough credits in an account all to venture a few miles? what happens in an emergency when the power goes out? you really want every trip you ever take videotaped every nose pick ball & butt scratch? they will have cameras with eye tracking for ad placement, to be able to bill you for hair grease on windows, snot wiped on seats, condoms wiped on floors, how will they handle minors or car seats, diasbled? don't forget the facial recognition warrant scans thatll kill the entire night shift lol what actual people outside silicon valley actually want this? you think really rich people are going to risk their lives in one? haha they have actual chauffers, going the exact speed limit & those 5-20 minute waits at busy crosswalks should be fun, sorry Dave doors locked you cant legally get out here at this stop light/intersection/stopped in traffic...

greatest ponzi story ever told

2-3 people per day per state murder themselves committing suicide

cars get safer anyhoo they not even realistic till the 2030s anyway, this 3-5 years stiff is delusional

traffic lights at 4am cant even tell theres no traffic or have timers to flash in many major cities but in a few years everyone just going to be hopping in a driverless car that 75+% of the population doesn't & wouldnt trust due to the latest polls

these things will be good on closed courses, resorts, disney world, company town but in real irban environments will be vandalized, robbed, sprayed with paintballs, nails dtopped in front, garbage cans, cones, & whatever placed around them so a human will have to come out & fix, left on blocks, spray painted lol


----------



## DownByTheRiver

AllGold said:


> All of us here, except maybe the most naive, know you're a shill.
> 
> So keep spewing your B.S. because most of the time it's pretty amusing.


As I've said, the only question is whether he/she is a corporate shill typing from a cubicle in Uber HQ or a freelance shill typing from an Obamaphone


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> You say as a pax. But you're thinking as a driver.
> 
> So if you're paying 3x surge and they have no intention of going public then you're good?


Let's do some role-playing, shall we?

*Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
*Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
*Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
*Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
*Pax:* Yeah why is that?
*Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
*Pax:* What policy?
*Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
*Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
*Tomato:* Yuppers
*Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
*Tomato:* Yuppers
*Pax:* EFFING A!


----------



## JMlyftuber

JMlyftuber said:


> I can only speak for the Lyft system, I don't know if Uber's test works the same but with Lyft you need to be located in a certain zone to get a bonus ranging from $4.50 to $16. Mine average $10. Once you see the bonus it will be there for ~15 min. It's based on your location not pax. Because I rarely see a surge >2x and most trips here are <5 miles the Lyft system is better for the driver. I wait about 30 minutes to get a request and gross $15, with a surge I could get ~$18 if I got 3 surge rides in one hour, but I would put a lot more mileage into it.
> Obviously this is extremely market dependent, and regardless of which is better for the driver, charging passenger the higher rate while paying the driver on the lower rate is purely despicable.
> 
> Agreed. The app works just fine. They could only maintain a bugfix team for security purposes and app development would cost very little. They like to constantly change the app because it gives the appearance of doing lots of costly work while costing many multiples less than a significant increase in minimum earnings would cost.
> 
> The insurance is really the only thing besides driver pay I want them to keep putting big money into.


Request to management: some way to know which post was liked in situations like this


----------



## iheartuber

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


This is a lie.

Uber is still going to charge pax a multiplier and pax will still pay a high fare during surge times but the only difference now is the driver will make less.



tomatopaste said:


> Let's do some role-playing, shall we?
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* EFFING A!


Tomato defending Uber drivers? Am I in the twilight zone?


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Agree. Do you want every employee in Wal-Mart telling you how much less they make than the employee at Target? Or how Wal-Mart is screwing them? No. You simply want to buy toilet paper, shampoo and body wash.


if they were paid $3.37 yes if they were paid less than minimum wage yes if walmart was blantaly violating the law yes

since they pay .01 over the legal minimum wage(a penny over slavery) no, thats what they signed up for & its legal

its your duty to let people know of illegal activity, i tell almost every rider "these airport pay $30-75+ an hour all other rides pay $4 an hour, doesn't take a genius to figure it out" ..."all rides less than 10 miles x drivers lose money on"...."96% of drivers fail first year you got a 1%er been driving 3"...."uber loses $9000 a minute 12 million a dat"... when most ask the how long or how you like driving for uber in convos i get tipped reuglarly & 99% 5 starred, they laugh some act surprised some get angered i also give them tips to wait out surge they dont last long, or if its 3 or higher go xl or select its cheaper along with other tips

ill be damned if i dont speak out about evil


----------



## Ginbo

Guys, 
My only question is, where does it say that Uber is going to roll out this policy to the whole nation? Regardless of the fact of you are agree or disagree. 
Uber is testing new tricky ways all the time. Remember the celebration of the new Uber partner app? They officially revealed the new design and the new Uber CEO, "DK" said "it's my first product ever since i came on board and..." it's already two months and there is not such an update yet.
The bottom line is, whenever you see something new from Uber, don't take it as a granted because there are a lot of if and else for Uber to roll out something new in such a large scale territory. A simple or small change can make an extreme impact on the market. 
Uber's only mission in top of everything else is being a company which can generate profit, it is a fact that they have lost for quite a while but in order to get there they might try a lot of new charges, just to learn which one might work better. 
I can't speak for other drivers but myself and if i was in any one of those cities which Uber has applied this flat rate policy, i would do pause driving. If people as individuals understand the affection of negative fighting instead of cheating or gaming, no small or big corporation can come and take advantage of their rights.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> 1. I'm never wrong. 2. The reason it will work is because pax are already pissed when they have to pay surge, when they find out it's all going to Uber, they're doubly pissed.


1. Pax don't care who gets the $, pax care about getting a cheap ride. If giving the drivers more will get them a cheap ride that's all they care about. Only very few pax want to see drivers have a "workers revolt"
2. The Tomato is usually wrong


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

Ginbo said:


> Guys,
> My only question is, where does it say that Uber is going to roll out this policy to the whole nation? Regardless of the fact of you are agree or disagree.
> Uber is testing new tricky ways all the time. Remember the celebration of the new Uber partner app? They officially revealed the new design and the new Uber CEO, "DK" said "it's my first product ever since i came on board and..." it's already two months and there is not such an update yet.
> The bottom line is, whenever you see something new from Uber, don't take it as a granted because there are a lot of if and else for Uber to roll out something new in such a large scale territory. A simple or small change can make an extreme impact on the market.
> Uber's only mission in top of everything else is being a company which can generate profit, it is a fact that they have lost for quite a while but in order to get there they might try a lot of new charges, just to learn which one might work better.
> I can't speak for other drivers but myself and if i was in any one of those cities which Uber has applied this flat rate policy, i would do pause driving. If people as individuals understand the affection of negative fighting instead of cheating or gaming, no small or big corporation can come and take advantage of their rights.


You have a valid question and make a good point. 75% of the responses are from those people who's markets are not affected. We should here from the. markets with the "test dummies" like myself. I can tell you first hand a lot of info out there is inaccurate. Personally for my full time driving style I like it. In my market surge came and went within 30 secs. Now it seems like it lasts for 5 mins. It's refreshung to consistently travel to a surge zone and actually be rewarded for getting there instead of the vanishing surge trick that seemed to happen daily.
To each their own but it works in my favor. But let's here from the testing crew first.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Wonkytonk said:


> Their actions are too drastic and far too objectionable to be seen as acceptable normal business practice.


It's just cost cutting; trying to get a better deal for themselves from their suppliers.


> In fact the gig economy as a whole is falling under increased scrutiny. A quick search on regulating the gig economy returns over 170K results.


If we're going to expand the focus to the entire gig economy then, yes, I agree - these "jobs-thinly-veiled-as-genuine-contractor-positions" are quite abhorrent. They are a blatant attempt to circumvent labor protection laws. Uber/Lyft get to have their cake and eat it. They get to do cost-cutting exercises like this as if we were contractors, but enjoy an excessive amount of control over us as if we were employees.


----------



## KellyC

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


Looks like Uber plans to punish drivers who don't accept all rides.

Gee, I thought we were independent contractors.


----------



## DexNex

Ginbo said:


> Guys,
> My only question is, where does it say that Uber is going to roll out this policy to the whole nation? Regardless of the fact of you are agree or disagree.
> Uber is testing new tricky ways all the time. Remember the celebration of the new Uber partner app? They officially revealed the new design and the new Uber CEO, "DK" said "it's my first product ever since i came on board and..." it's already two months and there is not such an update yet.
> The bottom line is, whenever you see something new from Uber, don't take it as a granted because there are a lot of if and else for Uber to roll out something new in such a large scale territory. A simple or small change can make an extreme impact on the market.
> Uber's only mission in top of everything else is being a company which can generate profit, it is a fact that they have lost for quite a while but in order to get there they might try a lot of new charges, just to learn which one might work better.
> I can't speak for other drivers but myself and if i was in any one of those cities which Uber has applied this flat rate policy, i would do pause driving. If people as individuals understand the affection of negative fighting instead of cheating or gaming, no small or big corporation can come and take advantage of their rights.


Lyft just rolled it out in Seattle. Major markets are coming... don't doubt it for a second.


----------



## KD_LA

tomatopaste said:


> Let's do some role-playing, shall we?
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* EFFING A!


Would that be* To-may-to*, or *To-mah-to*?


----------



## 1rightwinger

Here is how to beat it.....simple concept but I know it would be nearly impossible to make it happen.....but wouldn't this be sweet if it could happen......here it is......in any test city where Uber tries this new surge, a high percentage of drivers should simply not drive during surges. 

Result, Uber will have customers that they are able to charge high amounts to but they will have not enough "partners" to provide the service (because they are not paying enough to the partners). If this happens enough then they would not be able to implement this surge.


----------



## Eugene73

time we all quit for real this time


----------



## JMlyftuber

KellyC said:


> Looks like Uber plans to punish drivers who don't accept all rides.
> 
> Gee, I thought we were independent contractors.


If it's like Lyft's new scheme i don't go online until bonus awaits with no punishments


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

1rightwinger said:


> Here is how to beat it.....simple concept but I know it would be nearly impossible to make it happen.....but wouldn't this be sweet if it could happen......here it is......in any test city where Uber tries this new surge, a high percentage of drivers should simply not drive during surges.
> 
> Result, Uber will have customers that they are able to charge high amounts to but they will have not enough "partners" to provide the service (because they are not paying enough to the partners). If this happens enough then they would not be able to implement this surge.


Uber has figured this out. The problem with the small markets is their pay rates are so low. This new surge allows drivers to actually get in a surge zone and be paid more surge prices which satisfies their needs. I feel this will work well in some markets but fall flat in others.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

KellyC said:


> Looks like Uber plans to punish drivers who don't accept all rides.
> 
> Gee, I thought we were independent contractors.


Yes, this will clearly increase the amount of control or influence that the Dark Side has over its drivers.

It's interesting - the point of paying surge to drivers was presumably to make driving in specific areas at specific times _more_ attractive to drivers, not less. As in, "I really don't want drunken 'tards in my vehicle, but I'll do it for 2x or more". Or, "there's no point in driving morning rush hour given the traffic for base; I'll only do it for 1.8x minimum". Etc etc.

Now, though, they've made it very unattractive - I'm not going to go out of may way to drive in a surge area if I have to jump through hoops to get it - no going offline, you have to accept the ping they send you and so on and so forth, and all in exchange for them flicking me just an extra few bucks on top? More conditions added for less money.... no thanks. I'll stop driving in the surge zones at surge times and get basically the same money without the hassle of drunks or traffic.

I can't see this working in San Francisco, at all. I think they'll struggle to find drivers willing to drive the busy hours for base + a few bucks. And only idiots will take the 45+ minute trips on a surge. I hope this falls flat on its face if/when they introduce it here, but you never know.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Pax don't care who gets the $, pax care about getting a cheap ride.


This is demonstrably false.

Whatever the case, it seems as if Uber's long history of being aggressive and developing a reputation as a bully of the transportation industry has come back to bite it at the worst possible time. Perhaps that won't affect Uber in the long term, but it sure looks painful right now.
The 'delete Uber' campaign wasn't even Uber's fault and they did nothing wrong, and it certainly had nothing to do with people's wallets. Uber has lost 20 or more percent of the market to Lyft due to all the Uber scandals over the last few years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/delete-uber.html


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> This is demonstrably false.
> 
> Whatever the case, it seems as if Uber's long history of being aggressive and developing a reputation as a bully of the transportation industry has come back to bite it at the worst possible time. Perhaps that won't affect Uber in the long term, but it sure looks painful right now.
> The 'delete Uber' campaign wasn't even Uber's fault and they did nothing wrong, and it certainly had nothing to do with people's wallets. Uber has lost 20 or more percent of the market to Lyft due to all the Uber scandals over the last few years.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/delete-uber.html


Pax don't really understand surge. All they know is sometimes it's busy and they have to pay more and they don't like that. Other times it's a nice cheap ride and they do like that.

When they're mad at uber for charging them a high fare, they get mad at uber, not the drivers.

Hence, "delete Uber", which kind of came and went anyway.


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

1rightwinger said:


> Here is how to beat it.....simple concept but I know it would be nearly impossible to make it happen.....but wouldn't this be sweet if it could happen......here it is......in any test city where Uber tries this new surge, a high percentage of drivers should simply not drive during surges.
> 
> Result, Uber will have customers that they are able to charge high amounts to but they will have not enough "partners" to provide the service (because they are not paying enough to the partners). If this happens enough then they would not be able to implement this surge.


all the "partners" cockroaches are willing to scab at less than $1 a mile, a 3+ surge at this point is barely minimum wage so thatll never work

ask yourself why this site doesn't sticky and pin a nationwide strike, slow down, or something to unify & spread the word date on the main page & every city?

that would do wonders might get Nationwide publicity, but referring drivers competition is more important? ad revenue more important? vomit stories more important? whose side are they on?










#uberindependencedaystrike

feel free to make your own spread & share participate or dont i only spend a few minutes on it cuz its futile others can do better if you care stop preaching to the choir, i post on multiple sites get banned on multiple sites trying to spread truth, hit twitter, hit comment sections on uber articles, @ local tv news stations reporters

or dont


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> It's just cost cutting; trying to get a better deal for themselves from their suppliers.


Yes is some respects I don't blame Uber for trying to get away with as much as they can get away with. However, it also shows just how desperate Uber is. My guess is the investors gave Dara a date certain to show a profit or they're pulling the plug. This will backfire big time but what choice do they have?



iheartuber said:


> When they're mad at uber for charging them a high fare, they get mad at uber, not the drivers.


Yes exactly. And I'm saying drivers should pour salt in the wound by letting pax know Uber is still charging them the 3x surge but no longer using the surge to incentivize more driving to come online. Pax are paying the same price for a crappier service.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Yes is some respects I don't blame Uber for trying to get away with as much as they can get away with. However, it also shows just how desperate Uber is. My guess is the investors gave Dara a date certain to show a profit or they're pulling the plug. This will backfire big time but what choice do they have?
> 
> Yes exactly. And I'm saying drivers should pour salt in the wound by letting pax know Uber is still charging them the 3x surge but no longer using the surge to incentivize more driving to come online. Pax are paying the same price for a crappier service.


It won't do any good. It will just confuse the pax.

They don't care about the drivers. They just care about cheap rides. If anything drivers saying something just makes it worse because now the pax don't know who they should be angry with.

Keep it simple.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

The Gift of Fish said:


> I can't see this working in San Francisco, at all. I think they'll struggle to find drivers willing to drive the busy hours for base + a few bucks. And only idiots will take the 45+ minute trips on a surge. I hope this falls flat on its face if/when they introduce it here, but you never know.


That's why ScrUber is trying so hard to sign up new drivers. They need new people who don't know any better to take these rides.

If all drivers refused to make pickups in the surge zones (under the new system) ScrUber would have to make a choice between telling pax no cars are available or going back to the current surge system. I have no doubt they have it programmed in the system to be able to switch back and forth at will. The point will be to not take a ride with a flat rate surge and if needed cancel rather than cave. I'm not sure how many drivers would do that.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> It won't do any good. It will just confuse the pax.
> 
> They don't care about the drivers. They just care about cheap rides. If anything drivers saying something just makes it worse because now the pax don't know who they should be angry with.
> 
> Keep it simple.


I don't know the caliber of pax you have but every single pax I have will understand this immediately.


----------



## Coachman

The average uber driver lasts about two months. There will always be new drivers. Always. No amount of boycotting or protesting is going to change anything. I look at this as just a side hustle. That's all it is. I feel for anybody who's trying to make a living at this.


----------



## IERide

I think it’s amazing how some members are able to so accurately predict exactly what passengers will, or will not understand.
Can you tell me what Wednesday’s Lotto numbers will be??


----------



## tomatopaste

Coachman said:


> The average uber driver lasts about two months. There will always be new drivers. Always. No amount of boycotting or protesting is going to change anything. I look at this as just a side hustle. That's all it is. I feel for anybody who's trying to make a living at this.


It's a matter of principle. Yeah, I'll turn the other cheek if it allows me to get a better swing at them.



IERide said:


> I think it's amazing how some members are able to so accurately predict exactly what passengers will, or will not understand.
> Can you tell me what Wednesday's Lotto numbers will be??


Easy, 90 percent of the trips I take are business pax. I know when and where to drive in order to get business pax. I leave the hipsters to others.


----------



## Uber's Guber

homelesslawnmowers said:


> anyone who steps in a driverless car is a complete moron human meat bag


Have you looked at some of the idiots working as drivers for Uber/Lyft?
I'm ready to place my faith in artificial intelligence.


----------



## Leo.

IERide said:


> Yup.. Uber fought back against all the drivers 'gaming' surge, and the drivers have lost..
> Now the drivers will figure out ways to game this new system for a few extra pennies, and Uber will fight back, making it even worse..
> Before you know it, all the "career" drivers will be gone and all that will be left is "side gig" drivers.. Just like Uber wants..
> 
> As to your question "why isnt this the main thing we are talking about?" - Because talking about the weather doesn't change it.


Yeah nah your comparison is out of touch with reality.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I don't know the caliber of pax you have but every single pax I have will understand this immediately.


Oh please you gave up being a driver after 450 rides.


----------



## Fisfis

emdeplam said:


> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


If Uber really "deeply" cared about the pax, they wouldn't charge the pax 3x the rate, keep 80% of it and pay the driver 20.

I have no objections for surge to discontinue altogether. I get nothing, Uber gets nothing and customer pays the set amount. That's FAIR.

But don't tell me a company cares when all they do is rape their customers utilizing price arbitrage and give driver shit.

If you're charging me $100 to go downtown from West Hollywood claiming it's 2 am but not paying shit to the driver whose the one sacrificed his sleep and risked his well being to take me there, then you're the biggest shit turd ever existed.

This is outright EXTORTION! The times in high demand is a bs excuse because the driver's pocket is seeing none of that.

I hope Uber/Lyft ruins it for everyone and ends up like Napster because of their greediness. I surely believe that's the future waiting for them. Destination straight to the bottom of the deep shit they belong to.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the*mselves* customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they *to* work on profit *before anything else, just like any other business. If somebody gets reamed in the process, so be it; this is business*. The surge*s* games drove tons of *some* pax to alternatives *but most of the pax are as dense as the ants who drive them*. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport *drivers with the* BS *propaganda and lies it puts out* etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take *play* a certain level of games *to accomplish this*. But Uber cares deeply for the*mselves* pax and they will defend that experience.


FIFY



henrygates said:


> Isn't Uber threatening to deactivate drivers who discuss their pay with pax?


Uber has been doing that for quite some time. When a customer downrates you, one of the choices that he gets for "why" is "negative comments about Uber". If you get too many of those, you get a nastygram, and, it is not some cookie-cutter, canned nastygram from Rohit.



Cableguynoe said:


> pax They want a ride.


As long as the passengers press a button and the ride shows up, they do not care about anything else. Anyone who expects that they will is bigly setting up himself for a bigly serious disappointment.



1.5xorbust said:


> I'm not sure the pax really give a rat's ass how much the drivers make. They might pay us lip service and tell us how horrible that is but they'll continue to use the service depending on how much they have to pay.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



tomatopaste said:


> As a pax if I find out I'm paying 3x surge and Uber is now pocketing all of it just so they can go public, I'm livid.


That is you. Perhaps you are not as dense as either your standard ant or standard passenger. Odds are that as a user, you are toes to the kerb. The majority of Uber users _*ain't*_. This is one reason that practitioners of the Shirlington Shuffle are as successful at it as they are.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, this will clearly increase the amount of control or influence that the Dark Side has over its drivers..


Your "Dark Side" already uses Surge, Boost and Bonuses to control driver availability. Once Rush Hour ends, most incentives disappear as do the surges. This knocks the "Surge Only" drivers off the road. Uber does not need that many drivers out there in non-Rush Hours, so it will lower the rates to drive cars from availability. If there is a demand, Uber knows that more than a few drivers keep checking the application. If a surge comes into effect, that guy hits the road.



DownByTheRiver said:


> They need new people who don't know any better to take these rides. .


The new drivers know nothing different, so they will take whatever OOM-WAH-WAH that F*ub*a*r* feeds to them.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Another Uber Driver said:


> Your "Dark Side" already uses Surge, Boost and Bonuses to control driver availability. Once Rush Hour ends, most incentives disappear as do the surges. This knocks the "Surge Only" drivers off the road. Uber does not need that many drivers out there in non-Rush Hours, so it will lower the rates to drive cars from availability. If there is a demand, Uber knows that more than a few drivers keep checking the application. If a surge comes into effect, that guy hits the road.


Oh, they're not mine, LOL.

Anyway, you're stating the obvious. Uber has had dynamic pay since its inception. When demand goes up, so does the pay (surge/boost/bonuses) in order to increase driver supply.

The question I don't know the answer to is whether the new, much less attractive, surge will be enough of an incentive to still sufficiently increase driver supply during the demand peaks. We'll soon find out, and if it turns out that Uber got it wrong then they'll simply increase the incentives again.

The point I made was not that Uber does not already exercise control over its drivers, but that it will exert additional control via the additional conditions imposed in order for drivers to qualify for a surge payment. At present there are no conditions, other than for the driver to be close to a pax who is in a surge zone. The new, additional conditions in order to qualify for a surge payment, as mentioned by the OP are:

You dont reject a ride
You don't go offline
You don't change your ride preferences
You don't cancel a ride


----------



## Fisfis

MothMan said:


> The "surge game" may have driven PAX elsewhere but I fail to see why that matters here. Surge is not changing for the PAX. If surge is 7.1X, they are still paying 7.1X.


Can someone enlighten me what that "alternative" is??? What exactly pax doing different at 2 am in the morning if the rideshare companies are trying to charge surge?

Take bus? Are they walking back home? Jogging perhaps? Even cabs are not around at that time, much busier then many of us making real money charging $3 a mile with 5% commission expense on a credit card pay.

Alternative my ass. There's no ****ing alternative at 2 am in the morning.


----------



## Cincy UberX

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


I have been driving every Saturday for the past 3 months and never averaged below 450. Yesterday I worked 12 hours and barely hit 250. 
This new surge system is probably the deal breaker to me driving for Uber. They throw 11$ Extra on a fare that's 20 miles long and they pocket the rest of the 3.3x surge money. My earnings for this type of surge went from 88$ To 28$.


----------



## Yam Digger

The only reason I put up with the antics of bar closing is because of the surge. If fUber brings this horseshit to my market, I'll be going home before bar closing. Let the cabbies have it.


Another Uber Driver said:


> When a customer downrates you, one of the choices that he gets for "why" is "*negative comments about Uber*". If you get too many of those, you get a nastygram, and, it is not some cookie-cutter, canned nastygram from Rohit.


I can confirm this is true. I was at the Greenlight Hub a couple years back when I saw a driver pleading to be reactivated. CSR told him he was deactivated because of too many negative comments about Uber and the San Fran office put on his file: "Do not reactivate." There's a whole heap of Ubelievers who can't deal with the reality that tech companies actually do exploit people.

When pax ask me how I like driving for fUber, I just give them a dry "it's OK" which sends the message that I really don't want to talk about that.


----------



## Paul Vincent

Unemployment rate is so low there's good jobs out there now!


----------



## Rat

AllGold said:


> Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


Yes. Monsanto



emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


Uber clearly does not care about pax. They wouldn't be lowering safety standards to get more drivers and overcharging with upfront pricing if they cared. This is no more than greed in n Uber's part.
This will backfire for Uber. Many drivers only work surge. Those drivers won't come out without the surge. Uber's model requires a variable workforce that expands during high demand. They will lose that. Bar closing, big events, etc. will be underserved, meaning long wait times and long trips being cancelled by drivers


----------



## KMANDERSON

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


Charlotte going to walking her fat ass home from the bar!



Garbage Plate said:


> It's not getting a lot of posts because it's become expected. First upfront pricing, then they raise rider rates while paying us the same. Last week they increase the booking fee by a quarter, now they change surge pricing. Each time they make more, we make the same or less. They treat their drivers like crap , and will continue to do so as long as they have enough drivers. We can complain all day and night but until another company that treats us better comes along, and drivers begin to switch, that won't change. Unfortunately Lyft is not that company right now, and no one else is gaining much ground either so we're screwed for now.


Lyft rolled out the samething



tomatopaste said:


> Uber will keep bending over drivers as long as drivers keep bending over. From a pure self-respect aspect, how can any driver accept this? Drivers should 1. not drive if Uber implements this, and 2. let every pax know that the 4x surge they're paying is all going to Uber.


Drivers will never stop driving!The only way Uber will change is if city or state governments start to regulate them.



henrygates said:


> We aren't contractors. I've done a lot of freelance work and I've never, ever agreed to perform a job without having any idea of what the scope of the work is or what the end pay is. Until I started *working for* Uber.
> 
> Uber may call us independent contractors in the strictest "technical" sense, but we aren't really.


It cheaper then calling us employees.



tomatopaste said:


> Waymo is the only company operating without a backup driver but Google/Waymo started 5 to 6 years before everyone else.


And they have a lot more money then anyone else to invest in it.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

tomatopaste said:


> Let's do some role-playing, shall we?
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* EFFING A!


This is how the conversation REALLY goes:
*Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
*Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
*Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
*Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
*Pax:* Yeah why is that?
*Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
*Pax:* What policy?
*Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
*Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
*Tomato:* Well...uh...because...uh....
*Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?


----------



## Rat

iheartuber said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Uber is still going to charge pax a multiplier and pax will still pay a high fare during surge times but the only difference now is the driver will make less.
> 
> Tomato defending Uber drivers? Am I in the twilight zone?


Tomato just wants to argue. Doesn't matter which side


----------



## Uberduber420

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


Actually if that were true they would not charge passengers the same price as they did when the surge was based on a multiplayer.


----------



## Eugene73

Another Uber Driver said:


> FIFY
> 
> Uber has been doing that for quite some time. When a customer downrates you, one of the choices that he gets for "why" is "negative comments about Uber". If you get too many of those, you get a nastygram, and, it is not some cookie-cutter, canned nastygram from Rohit.
> 
> As long as the passengers press a button and the ride shows up, they do not care about anything else. Anyone who expects that they will is bigly setting up himself for a bigly serious disappointment.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That is you. Perhaps you are not as dense as either your standard ant or standard passenger. Odds are that as a user, you are toes to the kerb. The majority of Uber users _*ain't*_. This is one reason that practitioners of the Shirlington Shuffle are as successful at it as they are.
> 
> Your "Dark Side" already uses Surge, Boost and Bonuses to control driver availability. Once Rush Hour ends, most incentives disappear as do the surges. This knocks the "Surge Only" drivers off the road. Uber does not need that many drivers out there in non-Rush Hours, so it will lower the rates to drive cars from availability. If there is a demand, Uber knows that more than a few drivers keep checking the application. If a surge comes into effect, that guy hits the road.
> 
> The new drivers know nothing different, so they will take whatever OOM-WAH-WAH that F*ub*a*r* feeds to them.


said


----------



## Dug_M

The only reason I work the late nights is the surge when the bars close here in NJ. At 2am there is a greater chance of someone getting sick in my car at that time. With this new surge policy I will have no reason to work the bar closings and risk that so I'll most likely quit for the night around midnight.


----------



## iheartuber

Taxi2Uber said:


> This is how the conversation REALLY goes:
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* Well...uh...because...uh....
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?


This is the real pax. Don't care about anyone but themselves and the only "helpful advice" they can give to drivers faced with odd payment situations is to just quit.

All the while not even realizing that if every driver followed that advice the pax would never get an Uber.


----------



## Ziggy

It’s only a matter of time before a driver goes “Postal ” at Uber HQ & Lyft HQ (because Lyft is also screwing drivers out oF Primetime compensation). 

It would be one thing if they were eliminating surge & Primetime for both drivers and pax; but both Uber & Lyft are “cooking the books” charging pax for the full surge and paying drivers for a reduced surge. Criminals


----------



## UpoorPeople

emdeplam said:


> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


WTAF??? I actually went to read some of your other posts to see if you're a shill. It's worse; you're a driver and you actually said this.

Games? Uber is THE GAMES MASTER and the _only_ player in this game with the ability to change the rules faster than the other players can swipe "Start". You call drivers sitting logged out until third-world rates rise to a level they're willing to drive for "gaming"? The rest of the universe calls this common sense decision making.

You actually tell people that they don't understand Uber's motivativations and in the next breath say that "Uber cares deeply for the pax"?

Let me fix this for you. What Uber "cares deeply" about is the road to profitability. That's it. That's all. Uber will throw everything, EVERYTHING, under the bus on the road to profitability. It will screw drivers live on TV if it gets them to profitability just one second quicker.

You actually think this new surge scheme is to "Defend customer experience"? How's that when it means that 98% of rides will be given by miserable drivers in 8 year old puke-scented Prius's with destroyed suspension. Because that's the way it's gonna be when drivers with ANY other option tell Uber to go FECK itself.

Uber doesn't give two sh!ts about the passenger experience except where it's gotten SO BAD it threatens profitability. Uber doesn't give one sh!t about the passenger experience... Uber gives exactly 0.000 sh!ts about the passenger experience except where it's gotten SO BAD it threatens profitability.

This is a standard vanilla race to the bottom, which is the wet dream of every vampiric megalocorporation. Finding the sweet spot where you can serve up the shittiest sh!t that is still acceptable to the greatest number of people. And you know what? A great number of people have gotten USED to it. They EXPECT it. So much so that they now PREFER sh!tburgers over the real thing. Cue George Carlin...


----------



## hulksmash

The Gift of Fish said:


> The point I made was not that Uber does not already exercise control over its drivers, but that it will exert additional control via the additional conditions imposed in order for drivers to qualify for a surge payment. At present there are no conditions, other than for the driver to be close to a pax who is in a surge zone. The new, additional conditions in order to qualify for a surge payment, as mentioned by the OP are:
> 
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You don't cancel a ride


This is the biggest change about this new system, is that it's a counter to everything veteran drivers do to work the system to their advantage. When they say the surges will pop up more often it is actually to our detriment. I expect there will be lots of instances of $1-$2 surges just go give drivers a reason to accept the next request. Now ants feel like they get more surge more often, and Uber pays next to nothing to get their bidding done. If it's $0 surge most of the time like it is now, then there's no consequence for skipping a ping that had $0 surge to begin with


----------



## TheWanderer

Taxi2Uber said:


> This is how the conversation REALLY goes:
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* Well...uh...because...uh....
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?


Also they say, "but it is your job to take me"


----------



## Foober_Lyftz

A lot of shills in this thread sheesh. Anyone who thinks that a good portion of pax won't be pissed TF off with this system is sorely mistaken. Of course a good amount of pax don't care, but there will be a ton that do


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Foober_Lyftz said:


> A lot of shills in this thread sheesh. Anyone who thinks that a good portion of pax won't be pissed TF off with this system is sorely mistaken. Of course a good amount of pax don't care, but there will be a ton that do


I think many more don't care than the ones that do care. Just my opinion.


----------



## UberBeemer

RedSteel said:


> The crazy thing is they shouldn't have cared if we gamed the surge.....created a surge by waiting offline. They made more money if we did.....now they see a way to take most of the surge rates for themselves


They respond to riders. Riders complain about surge all the time to one degree or other. But, i think the last straw that is at work here is that riders complained about wait times and cancellations more.


----------



## tomatopaste

Taxi2Uber said:


> This is how the conversation REALLY goes:
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* Well...uh...because...uh....
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?


No, the conversation goes where I want it to go. Stop acting as if everything is out of your control.

*Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
*Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
*Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
*Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
*Pax:* Yeah why is that?
*Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
*Pax:* What policy?
*Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
*Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
*Tomato:* I don't drive very much but when I do I try to get business pax like yourself going downtown or to the airport.
*Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?
*Tomato: *Yeah we're good. You realize it sucks for you more than it sucks for me?
*Pax: *Really, how?
*Tomato: *You know how it now takes twenty minutes to get an Uber whereas before it only took 2 minutes?
*Pax: *Yeah
*Tomato: *And is it costing you more to get to the airport these days or less?
*Pax: *Way more! Now it's always 4x's surge!
*Tomato:* That's because there's no incentive for drivers to drive anymore.
*Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge because drivers have no incentive to drive and Uber is pocketing the entire fare instead of using it to incentivize more drivers to go online?
*Tomato: *Yuppers.
*Pax:* Wow, I didn't think about it like that, you're right, it does suck more for me.
*Tomato:* Yuppers. And I'm always right.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> the last straw that is at work here is that riders complained about wait times and cancellations more.


Then, Houston, we have a problem. Cause this scheme ain't gonna improve those two items.

I'm actually looking forward to watching this play out. This is one Uber ride I'll really enjoy.


----------



## UberBeemer

emdeplam said:


> Eventually a bunch of lawyers will get a big check, drivers will likely get a coupon for a free Happy Meals or oil change and by then Uber will have SDC's or it will be toast


I think SDCs will spell the end for companies if not the industry. People will get maimed or die, lawsuits proliferate, and the cost of purchase and maintenance of robot cars will be staggering. Each car will be able to run for only a couple hundred miles at a time and then sit for a charge. Fast charging frequently would ruin very expensive batteries. I just don't see the economy of doing this. Rides will becone so expensive, surviving taxi companies will become the mainstay once again.



UpoorPeople said:


> Then, Houston, we have a problem. Cause this scheme ain't gonna improve those two items.
> 
> I'm actually looking forward to watching this play out. This is one Uber ride I'll really enjoy.


True. Drivers will try to game the system by taking rides they deem acceptable, which will be fewer and further between if they take away the ability to profit from surges. But to all drivers who adopted this strategy, and won't take a pool or a base rate X, I have to ask, what did they expect?

Compare to other jobs. Any company you work for eventually catches on to employees exploiting loopholes. The reason HR departments have grown so in recent decades is, they need more people to develop and enforce policies that put the company first.



henrygates said:


> What's the point of having a self driving car if there's still a backup driver?


Maybe that job wouldn't be so bad. Get paid, probably hourly, with no overhead. But can you convince the robot you really really really need to pee?


----------



## tomatopaste

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think many more don't care than the ones that do care. Just my opinion.


Every single pax will be livid if they understand what's really going on. And it's up to the driver to educate them. Uber is charging the pax the same surge and pocketing it instead of using the surge fare to incentivize drivers to go online.


----------



## UberBeemer

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Let me play devils advocate for a moment.
> 1. How many of you are actually from a test market where this is happening?
> 2. If you are from one of these test (as I am) are you losing money weekly?
> 3. Is there a big difference between Uber taking more surge vs drivers who long haul from airports? Aren't they both trying to increase profitability?
> 4. Is it fare for a passenger to pay $250 more for a ride that costs $40? Some drivers see nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I'm in agreement with most that this seems unethical, illogical and unfair. But; (again playing devil's advocate) aren't we all in some way just like Uber?


Excellent point. If the ride was worth $20 10 minutes ago, why is it worth $60 right now?. But, the more important part is, with all the effort and overhead on your dime, why does Uber feel it's ok to cut uou out of most of the money, regardless of surge or otherwise?


----------



## Ziggy

TheWanderer said:


> Also they say, "but it is your job to take me"


Actually, I am an independent contractor and I feel threatened by you - GTF Out of my car.


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> 1. I'm never wrong..


"Thought i was wrong once, but i was mistaken..."



Cableguynoe said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> My surge rides are always happy.
> Maybe they get upset the next day when they're sober and see the charge.
> But even on my best surge rides they've all been pleasant.
> So like I said, you're wrong.
> It won't work.


Wait, he's wrong, but he's right? I think he has a point. Not sure it's quite the lynchpin, but certainly, riders get annoyed by the crazy increases.


----------



## Ziggy

tomatopaste said:


> Every single pax will be livid if they understand what's really going on. And it's up to the driver to educate them. Uber is charging the pax the same surge and pocketing it instead of using the surge fare to incentivize drivers to go online.


After enough pax miss their flights because pax refuse to drive more than 3 minutes to pick them up, they will start caring.

Though truthfully most drivers are too naive to realize that Uber & Lyft are robbing them blind. Bear in mind, UP has less than 1% of the English speaking drivers as members- so it's pretty hard to get critical mass on anything



tomatopaste said:


> No, the conversation goes where I want it to go. Stop acting as if everything is out of your control.
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* I don't drive very much but when I do I try to get business pax like yourself going downtown or to the airport.
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?
> *Tomato: *Yeah we're good. You realize it sucks for you more than it sucks for me?
> *Pax: *Really, how?
> *Tomato: *You know how it now takes twenty minutes to get an Uber whereas before it only took 2 minutes?
> *Pax: *Yeah
> *Tomato: *And is it costing you more to get to the airport these days or less?
> *Pax: *Way more! Now it's always 4x's surge!
> *Tomato:* That's because there's no incentive for drivers to drive anymore.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge because drivers have no incentive to drive and Uber is pocketing the entire fare instead of using it to incentivize more drivers to go online?
> *Tomato: *Yuppers.
> *Pax:* Wow, I didn't think about it like that, you're right, it does suck more for me.
> *Tomato:* Yuppers. And I'm always right.


Gonna start having a similar convo with my pax


----------



## Another Uber Driver

The Gift of Fish said:


> The question I don't know the answer to is whether the new, much less attractive, surge will be enough of an incentive to still sufficiently increase driver supply during the demand peaks.
> 
> The point I made was not that Uber does not already exercise *direct* control over its drivers, *marry, it is more of an indirect control;* but that it will exert additional *indirect* control via the additional conditions imposed in order for drivers to qualify for a surge payment. *This will reduce things such as rejected pings and the Shirlington Shuffle, as suddenly it will become more profitable actually to haul a passenger, than not. In fact, this is Uber's rather ingenious method of addressing this specific problem. Another thing that it will do is provide more incentive to the No-Poolers actually to accept them. This is getting the results of direct control through indirect. Money is a powerful motivator.*


It will be sufficient incentive if F*ub*a*r* can onboard enough newbie ants. If it can not, it will have coverage problems.

FIFY

Whatever happens, I do hope that at least F*ub*a*r* will not implement this in the Capital of Your Nation before the World Cup. Even though the U.S. of A. is not in it, this time, there are many immigrants from South and Central America here who will be hitting the gin mills. In 2014, it was Surge Paradise, as they hit over 4X. I was carrying mostly South and Central Americans. (None of them had a _*zeta*_, so I assumed that they were not from España. As an Italian speaker, I can decipher Spanish, but if I try to speak it for too long, it turns rapidly into Italian. Now, in 2010, I drove the cab during the World Cup [no Uber, then] and people from España were coming out of the manholes and off the lightposts--Good TImes) You were getting twenty five dollars for going ten blocks (there were three rounds of pay cuts subsequent to that, but still..............).



Fisfis said:


> Even cabs are not around at that time, much busier then many of us making real money charging $3 a mile with 5% commission expense on a credit card pay.


I do not know about your market, but in the Capital of Your Nation, the cabs get $3,50 on the drop and $2,16 the mile. Drivers and companies are specifically prohibited from charging extra for credit card use. The cab drivers do well when the gin mills close. In fact, Uber Taxi pings are fairly steady then, too. As I do not know in which market you are, I do not know if Uber Taxi is available in yours. I do both, Uber Taxi and UberX, but with different vehicles.



Yam Digger said:


> Let the cabbies have it.
> 
> When pax ask me how I like driving for fUber, I just give them a dry "it's OK"


We have more than a little of it, as it is, but, we will be glad to take back the lion's share. It seems that the customers ralph less in the cabs than they do in the Uber and Lyft cars. I am comparing my long experience with what I read on these Boards. To read half of what people post here, you would think that every third customer ralphs in the Uber and Lyft cars. If a customer does ralph in the cab, the cab has vinyl seat covers and rubber floors. As long as the customer does not get it into the door panels or under the seat, you can sop it up with newspapers, pour bleach onto the floor, sop up that, clean it again with bleach, dry thoroughly then use some paper towels and some spray nine. After less than thirty minutes of work, you would never know that it had happened. As most of the antmobiles have cloth seats and carpeted floors, once the ralph gets in, the smell never comes out. It is effectively De-Activation Station for the poor ant who gets a ralpher, as subsequent customers will downrate for the smell.

That is my response, as well. If it appears to be opportune, I will tell them that I drive both a cab and UberX and that Uber offers taxis, here. I take the opportunity to explain Uber Taxi to them. I did have one try to tell F*ub*a*r* that I was discouraging them from using Uber and telling them to use a competing "product". The whiner did manage to include a detail that I was telling them to do it only in the City (Uber Taxi is not available in the suburbs, here, only in the City). I simply explained to the Uber employee who had sent me the nastygram that I was, in fact, telling the customer about another UBER product that is available, here, Uber *TAXI*. The guy sent me back an e-Mail that informed me that he actually believed me, as he could see that I drove Uber Taxi, as well, and, that Uber Taxi is available in the Kap-itt-tull uv The New Knightidd Stakes Uh-Murrica. The penultimate and the last responses were not canned, so if the e-Mails did come from Bangalore, Pondicherry or Quezon City, the person who sent them must have been at the Supervisory Level, as his command of the English Language appeared to be at least at the high-school level.



Taxi2Uber said:


> This is how the conversation REALLY goes:
> *
> ......................................................................
> 
> Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?


The customer will care if he misses his flight. If he does not, he might dismiss it, unless it is one of a series of close calls due to his not being able to get his ride from Uber or Lyft. If he has only an occasional close call, he will not fuss too much.

It is when there are too many close calls or missed aeroplanes that the customer seriously wonders why. One or two, and he dismisses it, especially if he is flying, say, from Boston to Chicago. There are a hundred flights daily between those two, so if he does miss one, he can get another in short order. On the other hand, if he is flying from Little Rock to Seattle, there might be only one or two flights daily. He might have to get something to Dallas, Houston or Chicago and change there. That will send him to pee-yo-land more quickly.



Ziggy said:


> It's only a matter of time before a driver goes "Postal " at Uber HQ & Lyft HQ (because Lyft is also screwing drivers out oF Primetime compensation).
> 
> It would be one thing if they were eliminating surge & Primetime for both drivers and pax; but both Uber & Lyft are "cooking the books" charging pax for the full surge and paying drivers for a reduced surge. Criminals


If anyone would know this, it would be you. As for the other posters: Read and Pay Heed. We have seen arguments with Uber's founder and cab and limousine drivers commit suicide over decreased earnings as a result of Uber. You mess with people's purses and they do not like it.



Foober_Lyftz said:


> Of course a good amount of pax don't care, but there will be a ton that do


.........and of those that do care, they will buy into Gr*yft*'s putting itself out there as the "better boyfriend" and use Gr*yft* instead of F*ub*a*r*. This despite Gr*yft*'s copycatting F*ub*a*r* as it monkeys with Prime Time in a manner similar to F*ub*a*r*'s monkeying with the Surge.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

I'm sure Uber and Lyft have identified the "surge sweet spot" where drivers will respond and pax won't complain too much. My guess is that's somewhere between 1.5X and 2.5X. Just a guess, though. Now they must figure how to get the most of that surge for themselves. So they switch to a flat fee for surge instead of the multiplier on the driver's side of the equation.

Enter new drivers. Both are recruiting like crazy, although Uber more so. They need new drivers to:

Replace drivers leaving the platform
insure an adequate amount of drivers to hit the "surge sweet spot"
have drivers that will take the flat fee instead of a multiplier
Another guess I have is that this new system is going to cause the turnover to be even quicker. Current drivers will either totally quit or switch to only driving occasionally. Folks that sign up because of the ads are going to find it isn't as easy as portrayed on the ads and will leave. There will be a certain number of new and existing drivers that take whatever comes down the line because they have to have the money to keep a roof over their heads and food in their belly. If they find something different they'll be gone too. None of that matters to Uber/Lyft as long as they can supply enough vehicles to keep pax somewhat happy and coming back.

Just my 2 cents.



Another Uber Driver said:


> FIFY


FIFY?


----------



## Cableguynoe

UberBeemer said:


> Wait, he's wrong, but he's right? I think he has a point. Not sure it's quite the lynchpin, but certainly, riders get annoyed by the crazy increases.


I get annoyed with raising gas prices. 
But I could give a rats ass that the gas station employees are making minimum wage and only given part time hours

I just can't agree with tomatopaste because then we'd both be wrong.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

DownByTheRiver said:


> FIFY?


*F*ixed *I*t *F*or *Y*ou

Do not be embarrassed, I am an old coot and I had to Google it to learn what it meant.

*We old bogies don't talk no internetese none too good, ya' know,*


----------



## UberBeemer

socallaoc said:


> It's common practice for corps to have ICs sign NDAs. As a "tech company" Uber and Lyft have already been doing this with contract techies working on their algos. I haven't looked myself to verify but it wouldnt surprise me one bit if driver pay schedules are already covered by some sort of NDA we clicked through when signing up.
> 
> Hmm. I was about to say "no, god controls the weather." But then I remembered that Calvin Coolidge once said that the chief business of the American people is business. And that David Bowie and Trent Reznor once said that god is an American.
> 
> MY GOD. UBER IS GOD!!!?


No. God is love. Love is blind, ergo, Ray Charles is god.


----------



## KurtRussell

Too long a thread to read everything but bottom line, most drivers (not here) don't know and/or don't care. They drive aimlessly around all day with no surge, no incentives, higher gas prices and less money being made all because they'd rather do this than get a real job. In Detroit, you can turn on the rider app at any given time and find cars everywhere. Just sitting and waiting for a ping. So, this is how and why Uber can do whatever they want to drivers. 
Lyft is already testing it out in Detroit. Heat Maps where you get a few extra dollars. Big deal.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Another Uber Driver said:


> *F*ixed *I*t *F*or *Y*ou
> 
> Do not be embarrassed, I am an old coot and I had to Google it to learn what it meant.
> 
> *We old bogies don't talk no internetese none too good, ya' know,*


Thank you. I'm older myself. I should have thought of Google though.


----------



## UberBeemer

DownByTheRiver said:


> As I've said, the only question is whether he/she is a corporate shill typing from a cubicle in Uber HQ or a freelance shill typing from an Obamaphone


Do you know the difference between an Obamaphone and a Trumpphone? One is what you think, and works.



tomatopaste said:


> Let's do some role-playing, shall we?
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* EFFING A!


The very first part of this will get their attention. You could suggest that now that uber has gotten you accustomed to cab-like wait times, and paying a manufactured premium, they're taking it a step further and cutting themselves in for the lions share.

You better drive for Lyft and Via first though, before you PO all your uber customers, and they switch apps...


----------



## MothMan

Cincy UberX said:


> I have been driving every Saturday for the past 3 months and never averaged below 450. Yesterday I worked 12 hours and barely hit 250.


I'd say using this past Saturday as a gauge is not the way to go. Saturday of Memorial Day weekend is a SLOW day.


----------



## UberBeemer

Paul Vincent said:


> Unemployment rate is so low there's good jobs out there now!


One thing the rideshare industry has done to some extent is mask employment figures. People in their 50's making 6 figures are often left with few opportunities, because the market would rather hire two or three entry level FTE's for the same money. So, after their 6 months of unemployment benefits dry up, they take this job, and figure out how to work it. Then, the company kicks a leg out from under them by jazzing with the rates, and holding up more hoops for less pay.

All the while, the statistics look better because people are not on the dole, are working, but it doesn't reveal that they're under employed.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> True... Drivers will try to game the system by taking rides they deem acceptable... Any company you work for eventually catches on to employees exploiting loopholes.


I appreciate you agreeing with me, but what's this other stuff you keep saying? Taking rides I "deem as acceptable" isn't gaming the system. IT IS THE SYSTEM. It is precisely the model that Uber signed up for when it decided to use "independent contractors" and has fought tooth and nail to defend when it stands to benefit.

And exploiting? Are you serious right now? This is just insane. We are not employees. And we are not exploiting loopholes. We are exercising our explicit legal right to accept or turn down any given "contract", which is just about the only benefit of being an IC. You keep talking about this like it's "shady". WTF? There is one party being shamelessly exploited here, arguably illegally, and it ain't Uber.



UberBeemer said:


> But to all drivers who adopted this strategy, and won't take a pool or a base rate X, I have to ask, what did they expect?


I expect Uber to continue to offer me exactly what I decide my time and overhead are worth or to £@$# off. That's my proposition. What did you expect? What did Uber expect?



UberBeemer said:


> Compare to other jobs. The reason HR departments have grown so in recent decades is, they need more people to develop and enforce policies that put the company first.


Yeah, its just like the 50's, Uber is the Ford Motor Company, and we all have employment for life with overtime and benefits. LO ING L.

Damn drivers would have no worries if they just put Uber first. Going to gouge my eyes out now...


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> I get annoyed with raising gas prices.
> But I could give a rats ass that the gas station employees are making minimum wage and only given part time hours
> 
> I just can't agree with tomatopaste because then we'd both be wrong.


The pax does care when he's getting ripped off. That's why drivers need to explain to the pax how he, the pax, is getting ripped off. Pax understand supply and demand and when it's busy they can either wait or pay more to get a ride now. This is not the case with the new surge policy. Pax is still paying the surge premium but Uber is not using it incentivize drivers to go online, they're just pocketing it. Every. Single. Pax. will be livid if drivers are able to explain this to them.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> Every. Single. Pax. will be livid if drivers are able to explain this to them.


lol


----------



## KellyC

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, this will clearly increase the amount of control or influence that the Dark Side has over its drivers.
> 
> It's interesting - the point of paying surge to drivers was presumably to make driving in specific areas at specific times _more_ attractive to drivers, not less. As in, "I really don't want drunken 'tards in my vehicle, but I'll do it for 2x or more". Or, "there's no point in driving morning rush hour given the traffic for base; I'll only do it for 1.8x minimum". Etc etc.
> 
> Now, though, they've made it very unattractive - I'm not going to go out of may way to drive in a surge area if I have to jump through hoops to get it - no going offline, you have to accept the ping they send you and so on and so forth, and all in exchange for them flicking me just an extra few bucks on top? More conditions added for less money.... no thanks. I'll stop driving in the surge zones at surge times and get basically the same money without the hassle of drunks or traffic.
> 
> I can't see this working in San Francisco, at all. I think they'll struggle to find drivers willing to drive the busy hours for base + a few bucks. And only idiots will take the 45+ minute trips on a surge. I hope this falls flat on its face if/when they introduce it here, but you never know.


Exactly!


----------



## NoPooPool

tomatopaste said:


> No, the conversation goes where I want it to go. Stop acting as if everything is out of your control.
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* I don't drive very much but when I do I try to get business pax like yourself going downtown or to the airport.
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?
> *Tomato: *Yeah we're good. You realize it sucks for you more than it sucks for me?
> *Pax: *Really, how?
> *Tomato: *You know how it now takes twenty minutes to get an Uber whereas before it only took 2 minutes?
> *Pax: *Yeah
> *Tomato: *And is it costing you more to get to the airport these days or less?
> *Pax: *Way more! Now it's always 4x's surge!
> *Tomato:* That's because there's no incentive for drivers to drive anymore.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge because drivers have no incentive to drive and Uber is pocketing the entire fare instead of using it to incentivize more drivers to go online?
> *Tomato: *Yuppers.
> *Pax:* Wow, I didn't think about it like that, you're right, it does suck more for me.
> *Tomato:* Yuppers. And I'm always right.


Very good post Paste. With a conversation led along those lines, I can see that scenario as you describe it, much more than your detractors.



UberBeemer said:


> Excellent point. If the ride was worth $20 10 minutes ago, why is it worth $60 right now?. But, the more important part is, with all the effort and overhead on your dime, why does Uber feel it's ok to cut uou out of most of the money, regardless of surge or otherwise?


You know why, along with anybody else with a working brain. Uber is a company run by lowlife scumbags, and they do not give one-half of a single
throw about the revolving door of drivers entering and leaving just as quickly. The drivers that run the cars to do the rides, put up with 80% of the costs involved, and the majority of the labor and risk involved, but are fine with taking 40-70% of the revenue generated by a given ride. As a company , they are as dirty as the come.



Cableguynoe said:


> lol


LOL? I cannot believe your shortsightedness, Cableguynoe!


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> lol


Valid argument. Here's the problem. If you ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese at Mcdonald's and they said it's $20. You'd be all like WFT, why is it $20?! And then when they said: well it's surge pricing cause we need to get the stock price up. You'd be all like WFT?!


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> Valid argument. Here's the problem. If you ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese at Mcdonald's and they said it's $20. You'd be all like WFT, why is it $20?! And then when they said: well it's surge pricing cause we need to get the stock price up. You'd be all like WFT?!


I wouldn't be upset. At all.
I would laugh at them and wish them luck selling that burger.
Then I'd go get a pizza.
. Bad example

Try again


----------



## Fisfis

Another Uber Driver said:


> It will be sufficient incentive if F*ub*a*r* can onboard enough newbie ants. If it can not, it will have coverage problems.
> 
> FIFY
> 
> Whatever happens, I do hope that at least F*ub*a*r* will not implement this in the Capital of Your Nation before the World Cup. Even though the U.S. of A. is not in it, this time, there are many immigrants from South and Central America here who will be hitting the gin mills. In 2014, it was Surge Paradise, as they hit over 4X. I was carrying mostly South and Central Americans. (None of them had a _*zeta*_, so I assumed that they were not from España. As an Italian speaker, I can decipher Spanish, but if I try to speak it for too long, it turns rapidly into Italian. Now, in 2010, I drove the cab during the World Cup [no Uber, then] and people from España were coming out of the manholes and off the lightposts--Good TImes) You were getting twenty five dollars for going ten blocks (there were three rounds of pay cuts subsequent to that, but still..............).
> 
> I do not know about your market, but in the Capital of Your Nation, the cabs get $3,50 on the drop and $2,16 the mile. Drivers and companies are specifically prohibited from charging extra for credit card use. The cab drivers do well when the gin mills close. In fact, Uber Taxi pings are fairly steady then, too. As I do not know in which market you are, I do not know if Uber Taxi is available in yours. I do both, Uber Taxi and UberX, but with different vehicles.
> 
> We have more than a little of it, as it is, but, we will be glad to take back the lion's share. It seems that the customers ralph less in the cabs than they do in the Uber and Lyft cars. I am comparing my long experience with what I read on these Boards. To read half of what people post here, you would think that every third customer ralphs in the Uber and Lyft cars. If a customer does ralph in the cab, the cab has vinyl seat covers and rubber floors. As long as the customer does not get it into the door panels or under the seat, you can sop it up with newspapers, pour bleach onto the floor, sop up that, clean it again with bleach, dry thoroughly then use some paper towels and some spray nine. After less than thirty minutes of work, you would never know that it had happened. As most of the antmobiles have cloth seats and carpeted floors, once the ralph gets in, the smell never comes out. It is effectively De-Activation Station for the poor ant who gets a ralpher, as subsequent customers will downrate for the smell.
> 
> That is my response, as well. If it appears to be opportune, I will tell them that I drive both a cab and UberX and that Uber offers taxis, here. I take the opportunity to explain Uber Taxi to them. I did have one try to tell F*ub*a*r* that I was discouraging them from using Uber and telling them to use a competing "product". The whiner did manage to include a detail that I was telling them to do it only in the City (Uber Taxi is not available in the suburbs, here, only in the City). I simply explained to the Uber employee who had sent me the nastygram that I was, in fact, telling the customer about another UBER product that is available, here, Uber *TAXI*. The guy sent me back an e-Mail that informed me that he actually believed me, as he could see that I drove Uber Taxi, as well, and, that Uber Taxi is available in the Kap-itt-tull uv The New Knightidd Stakes Uh-Murrica. The penultimate and the last responses were not canned, so if the e-Mails did come from Bangalore, Pondicherry or Quezon City, the person who sent them must have been at the Supervisory Level, as his command of the English Language appeared to be at least at the high-school level.
> 
> The customer will care if he misses his flight. If he does not, he might dismiss it, unless it is one of a series of close calls due to his not being able to get his ride from Uber or Lyft. If he has only an occasional close call, he will not fuss too much.
> 
> It is when there are too many close calls or missed aeroplanes that the customer seriously wonders why. One or two, and he dismisses it, especially if he is flying, say, from Boston to Chicago. There are a hundred flights daily between those two, so if he does miss one, he can get another in short order. On the other hand, if he is flying from Little Rock to Seattle, there might be only one or two flights daily. He might have to get something to Dallas, Houston or Chicago and change there. That will send him to pee-yo-land more quickly.
> 
> If anyone would know this, it would be you. As for the other posters: Read and Pay Heed. We have seen arguments with Uber's founder and cab and limousine drivers commit suicide over decreased earnings as a result of Uber. You mess with people's purses and they do not like it.
> 
> .........and of those that do care, they will buy into Gr*yft*'s putting itself out there as the "better boyfriend" and use Gr*yft* instead of F*ub*a*r*. This despite Gr*yft*'s copycatting F*ub*a*r* as it monkeys with Prime Time in a manner similar to F*ub*a*r*'s monkeying with the Surge.


I drove in the capital of my proud nation for 7 years. Both Uber and taxi. I started as a leaser in Yellow Cab Fairfax. Then after Uber came in, did that for a while but decided to become a private owner.

Used to hang out at Reston Hyatt Regency. That was my spot. Yes $3.50 was the drop rate and $2.15 a mile. Yellow would charge us 5% on every card transaction so I bought a tablet and started using square and paypal here.

Good old days. Still miss those days although I make more here. I drive Uber in LA market now. I make more here but I was happier there.

I remember 2012, wanted to drive a DC cab but I found out the applications were closed past 5 years. Once Uber came out, they reopened and brought the Dome requirement. I remember like yesterday.

You had to also go through a 6 week training like New York. Then they dropped the training altogether and started giving same week permits. It was getting tough out there so I bailed.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> I wouldn't get mad. At all.
> I would laugh at them and wish them luck selling that burger.
> Then I'd go get a pizza.
> . Bad example
> 
> Try again


It's the exact same thing Uber is doing with the new surge policy. They're charging the customer 3 or 4 times as much for no additional value whatsoever. All they're doing is gouging the pax in order to try to go public.

In the Mcdonald's example the customer sees right away they're being gouged for no additional value. The same exact thing is happening to the Uber pax, but it's hidden. That's where you come in.


----------



## Ziggy

Another Uber Driver said:


> If anyone would know this, it would be you.


It would never be me; because Uber has always been a side gig for me. But there are plenty of drivers who only have Uber and just look at the girl who went postal because YouTube stopped showing her videos, which stopped her ad revenue.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Another Uber Driver said:


> It will be sufficient incentive if F*ub*a*r* can onboard enough newbie ants. If it can not, it will have coverage problems.


Again, time will tell.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> In the Mcdonald's example the customer sees right away they're being gouged for no additional value. The same exact thing is happening to the Uber pax, but it's hidden. That's where you come in.


You're misinformed.

Nothing that matters to pax is hidden from them. 
They tell app they want to go from current location to X. 
App thinks for a few seconds and spits out a price, surge or not.

Then pax decides if they want to hit the request button or not.

It's pretty transperent if you ask me.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Are you serious right now? This is just insane. We are not employees. And we are not exploiting loopholes.


At the risk of sounding like a shill, here's the deal. Uber offers you rides. No promises were ever made to any of us that there would be a pile of cake for each one. So folks worked out that if you game the system by taking jobs you like and ignoring those you don't, you can avoid the low paying ones and nab more of the higher paying rides. Then came the pseudo-science of working the surges. Sorry if you don't like the terms i use, and its really ok if you don't agree with me. But the simple fact is, all of us have tried to turn this system to our advantage, or at the very least, to mitigate our disadvantage, rather than sound like an ant and try to keep busy taking what comes. So, yeah, gaming the system. It is what it is, just embrace it.



UpoorPeople said:


> I expect Uber to continue to offer me exactly what I decide my time and overhead are worth or to £@$# off. That's my proposition. What did you expect? What did Uber expect?


Uber expected that they offer rides and we take them. When Uber realized that some people figured out how to play for surges, they figured out how to tilt the playing field back toward their bank accounts. It is business in the world of Citizens United culture, where business has pull and people get pulled, unless they own the business. Or, as mom used to say, its the golden rule; those with the gold, make the rules.

In orher words, they're telling you precisely what your time and overhead are worth, to them. And that you can sod off, if it doesn't suit you. As i said earlier, they made us no promise of phat stacks for each ride, just some money for time and miles, and by the way, that you're free to accept their ever changing terms, or don't let the garage door close on your hood.

I don't like it either, but i did learn where and when to work so that surges are seen as a bonus when i do get one, and that makes a big difference in quality of life.



Cableguynoe said:


> I get annoyed with raising gas prices.
> But I could give a rats ass that the gas station employees are making minimum wage and only given part time hours
> 
> I just can't agree with tomatopaste because then we'd both be wrong.


Try to cherry pick the wisdom from the parts you dont agree with. Game it, like a surge ride. Its less aggrevating that way than always throwing shade at those who don't agree with you.



tomatopaste said:


> All they're doing is gouging the pax in order to try to go public.


They aren't really doing any more gouging of passengers with this policy than before it. The 5x ride on NYE will still be 5x as far as the rider sees. The company just figured out that if more drivers are creating bad passenger feedback because they had to wait twice as long while the surge kept climbing, they need to get in front of this before all that money goes to lyft.


----------



## SRGuy

As stated earlier, the emphasis now will be on short rides. 45+min will be ignored. Pax will wait longer and surge will go higher because nobody will be accepting rides. System reliability could become a major issue. It will be interesting to see how it gets implemented in SF. This also means the end of Boost as we know it.


----------



## UberBeemer

NoPooPool said:


> You know why, along with anybody else with a working brain. Uber is a company run by lowlife scumbags, and they do not give one-half of a single
> throw about the revolving door of drivers entering and leaving just as quickly. The drivers that run the cars to do the rides, put up with 80% of the costs involved, and the majority of the labor and risk involved, but are fine with taking 40-70% of the revenue generated by a given ride. As a company , they are as dirty as the come.


Its kind of how the world works, no? Companies see workers as tools like a carpenter sees a hammer. Some hammers last longer than others, but they need to drive the nails. Maybe its a brad right now, or a sinker next. But if somehow, the hammer didn't want to drive the picture nail, and they had a lot of pictures to hang, they'd just get a new hammer.

It sucks, but the hammer that doesn't wiff on the brads or the picture nails or the sinkers, gets to ride around in the good toolbox, while the one that only wanted sinkers might get rusty.



UpoorPeople said:


> Yeah, its just like the 50's, Uber is the Ford Motor Company, and we all have employment for life with overtime and benefits. LO F'ING L.
> 
> Damn drivers would have no worries if they just put Uber first. Going to gouge my eyes out now...


Not sure where you get that from what i said. My point is, i guess in simplest terms, uber never promised us a rose garden, and when they learned that many drivers learned to play by their own parameters, Uber did what any company would, and changed the rules.


----------



## hulksmash

UberBeemer said:


> Uber expected that they offer rides and we take them. When Uber realized that some people figured out how to play for surges, they figured out how to tilt the playing field back toward their bank accounts. It is business in the world of Citizens United culture, where business has pull and people get pulled, unless they own the business. Or, as mom used to say, its the golden rule; those with the gold, make the rules.
> 
> In orher words, they're telling you precisely what your time and overhead are worth, to them. And that you can sod off, if it doesn't suit you. As i said earlier, they made us no promise of phat stacks for each ride, just some money gor tome and miles, and by the way, that you're free to accept their ever changing terms, or don't let the garage door close on your hood.
> 
> I don't like it either, but i did learn where and when to work so that surges are seen as a bonus when i do get one, and that makes a big difference in quality of life.


I expected Uber to simply act as an intermediary party between drivers and pax, and just take a fair percentage of the transaction like they did in the early days. I also expected them to simply allow market conditions to determine prices (which is what surge was supposed to be for). After all, this is what sites like Amazon and EBay do, just take a cut and not set the market. When constant surges appeared as a result of several rate cuts (and fewer driver) , I expected them to get the hint that rates were too low and to simply raise them up until market equilibrium was reached. Drivers waiting for surge should've been seen as a message that they were unwilling to work for low wages so they should've adjusted accordingly.

Instead, in an effort to placate pax, they subsidizes rides to artificially lower rates during high demand times, so both Uber and the drivers were making less than they should've. I expected Uber to realize the strategy was not sustainable and to just raise rates to what the true cost of a ride should be. Now that they've lost too much money subsidizing rides, they are coming up with a way to screw the drivers. If the company had been managed right from the beginning, they should have been easily able to profit with a 25% cut and no vehicle expenses. Surges weren't a problem because when rates were allowed to be raised organically, Uber's cut increased as well. I expected someone to get that hint


----------



## UberBeemer

Someone at Uber? That would have been nice.


----------



## AllGold

hulksmash said:


> I expected Uber to simply act as an intermediary party between drivers and pax, and just take a fair percentage of the transaction like they did in the early days. I also expected them to simply allow market conditions to determine prices (which is what surge was supposed to be for). After all, this is what sites like Amazon and EBay do, just take a cut and not set the market. When constant surges appeared as a result of several rate cuts (and fewer driver) , I expected them to get the hint that rates were too low and to simply raise them up until market equilibrium was reached. Drivers waiting for surge should've been seen as a message that they were unwilling to work for low wages so they should've adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Instead, in an effort to placate pax, they subsidizes rides to artificially lower rates during high demand times, so both Uber and the drivers were making less than they should've. I expected Uber to realize the strategy was not sustainable and to just raise rates to what the true cost of a ride should be. Now that they've lost too much money subsidizing rides, they are coming up with a way to screw the drivers. If the company had been managed right from the beginning, they should have been easily able to profit with a 25% cut and no vehicle expenses. Surges weren't a problem because when rates were allowed to be raised organically, Uber's cut increased as well. I expected someone to get that hint


I wish I were able to Like your post about 100 times. Especially the part where you say "If the company had been managed right from the beginning, they should have been easily able to profit with a 25% cut and no vehicle expenses."


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> At the risk of sounding like a shill, here's the deal.


Nah, you don't sound like a shill at all. You do sound condescending though. You want to tell me what the deal is? No need bro, I knew it long before I decided to give this thing a whirl. You and Uber might need a refresher though. You compared drivers to employees - first mistake, apples and oranges.



UberBeemer said:


> So, yeah, gaming the system. It is what it is, just embrace it.


Second mistake, you continue to think of drivers picking and choosing rides as "exploiting loopholes" or "gaming the system" when it's the very definition of the term "independent contractor". _That's_ the deal. It's not secret knowledge. If Uber was actually surprised when drivers who understood the phrase "independent contractor" started doing it, then it is truly farked and had no business entering this arena in the first place. It's like you're saying that Uber is a victim of devious drivers who used black magic against them, so they just _have_ to change their terms every few weeks.



UberBeemer said:


> Uber expected that they offer rides and we take them.


 Unrealistic expectations often lead to failure, so what? Its kind of how the world works, no? I never agreed to take every ride they offered me. Next...



UberBeemer said:


> It is business in the world of Citizens United culture, where business has pull and people get pulled, unless they own the business.


 Ah, see I think you must be talking about yourself here and how _you_ allow _yourself _to be pulled by businesses and then projecting this on others as if it was some sort of natural law of the universe. But you're sure as hell not talking about me. You haven't met me, or most other people you are speaking for here. In reality, there is always push and pull between the two, except when people buy into the propoganda that they're powerless.



UberBeemer said:


> In orher words, they're telling you precisely what your time and overhead are worth, to them. And that you can sod off, if it doesn't suit you.


 Did you perhaps miss the important "or" in my sentence _"I expect Uber to continue to offer me exactly what I decide my time and overhead are worth _*or*_ to £@$# off." _? See, I give Uber the choice. Quite the opposite of what you say, so far it's me who's telling Uber what my time and overhead are worth and that I don't drive regular fares. Interestingly, Uber hasn't told me to sod off yet. It's quite likely that I'll be doing the telling there also.



UberBeemer said:


> As i said earlier, they made us no promise of phat stacks for each ride, just some money for time and miles...


 Here you seem to be conversing with an imaginary person who's not me. I never expected, nor ever said I expected "phat stacks" from driving Uber. In fact, I've never said "phat stacks" in my life and hope I never do.



UberBeemer said:


> and by the way, that you're free to accept their ever changing terms, or don't let the garage door close on your hood.


 I'll accept their terms when it suits me and drop them like a dirty shirt when they don't. What's your point?

And "ever changing terms" is just prime evidence of Uber's exploitative approach in dealing with drivers. Number one sign of crooked business dealings is a party changing the terms when they no longer suit him as much as he thinks they should.


----------



## Trump Economics

tomatopaste said:


> All drivers have to do is inform pax what Uber is doing. "You know the 3x's surge ur paying? I get none of it." You think the delete Uber campaign was big the last time. Strap in.





RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


I don't see how all of this doesn't blow up in Uber's face? If I, for example, agreed to an 80/20 split, how can they not get sued for flipping it to a 20/80 split whenever they feel like it? Thats intentionally operating in bad faith. SOOOOO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Sounds like we have ZERO choice to negotiate. And I, like a lot of you, have ZERO issue telling every single passenger they're being gouged, that there are instances where Uber is taking more than 50 percent commission, and that they should delete Uber. At that point, I'll be working at McDonalds, so I could care less about the demise of this app. Just glad to know Dara is a fake POS (like Travis) - can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## tomatopaste

Trump Economics said:


> View attachment 232927
> 
> 
> I don't see how all of this doesn't blow up in Uber's face? If I, for example, agreed to an 80/20 split, how can they not get sued for flipping it to a 20/80 split whenever they feel like it? Thats intentionally operating in bad faith. SOOOOO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Sounds like we have ZERO choice to negotiate. And I, like a lot of you, have ZERO issue telling every single passenger they're being gouged, that there are instances where Uber is taking more than 50 percent commission, and that they should delete Uber. At that point, I'll be working at McDonalds, so I could care less about the demise of this app. Just glad to know Dara is a fake POS (like Travis) - can't say I'm surprised.


This ain't gonna fly with California regulators. Taxi companies can't just quadruple fares whenever they want more money.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Nah, you don't sound like a shill. You sound condescending though. You want to tell me what the deal is? No need bro, I knew it long before I decided to give this thing a whirl. You and Uber might need a refresher though. You compared drivers to employees - first mistake, apples and oranges.
> 
> Second mistake, you continue to think of drivers picking and choosing rides as "exploiting loopholes" or "gaming the system" when it's the very definition of the term "independent contractor". _That's_ the deal. It's not secret knowledge. If Uber was actually surprised when drivers who understood the phrase "independent contractor" started doing it, then it is truly farked and had no business entering this arena in the first place. It's like you're saying that Uber is a victim of devious drivers who used black magic against them, so they just _have_ to change their terms every few weeks.
> 
> Unrealistic expectations often lead to failure, so what? Its kind of how the world works, no? I never agreed to take every ride they offered me. Next...
> 
> Ah, see I think you must be talking about yourself here and how _you_ allow _yourself _to be pulled by businesses and then projecting this on others as if it was some sort of natural law of the universe. But you're sure as hell not talking about me. You haven't met me, or most other people you are speaking for here. In reality, there is always push and pull between the two, except when people buy into the propoganda that they're powerless.
> 
> Did you perhaps miss the important "or" in my sentence _"I expect Uber to continue to offer me exactly what I decide my time and overhead are worth _*or*_ to £@$# off." _? See, I give Uber the choice. Quite the opposite of what you say, so far it's me who's telling Uber what my time and overhead are worth and that I don't drive regular fares. Interestingly, Uber hasn't told me to sod off yet. It's quite likely that I'll be doing the telling there also.
> 
> Here you seem to be conversing with an imaginary person who's not me. I never expected, nor ever said I expected "phat stacks" from driving Uber. In fact, I've never said "phat stacks" in my life and hope I never do.
> 
> I'll accept their terms when it suits me and drop them like a dirty shirt when they don't. What's your point?
> 
> And "ever changing terms" is just prime evidence of Uber's exploitative approach in dealing with drivers. Number one sign of crooked business dealings is a party changing the terms when they don't suit him as much as he thinks they should.


Nice rant. And I am the condescending one, huh?

I never said we're employees. And everything you state more or less confirms that you expect to keep gaming the system and that you expect Uber to like it. And by the way, gaming it isnt shady, necessarily. That is another of your predispositions. I merely point out that the way you want it to work is actually cherry picking, regardless of the way you want to look at it. Can you really deny it? You believe that your time, gas, oil, etc., are worth more to Uber than the average driver. Why would that be true? Do you have anything to offer other than a ride? Your having figured out that your weekly pay is higher because you leave certain customers unserved doesn't make you more valuable, from the standpoint of Uber. They prefer us to take any rider they offer regardless of how clever we are.

I see so many members here who say with indignation, just like you do, that uber is screwing us, etc., but they are doing everything that they agreed to do when we signed on. And you can bet they read our posts, about how we leave passengers wait until we get that nice multiplier. So what do you expect them to see that as? Something to be rewarded, when it causes customers to grouse about how hard it is to get a ride at times?

No, they see it as a loophole, and they try to figure out how to close it. That's what the business world has become. A company hires workers (contractors, employees, it doesn't matter) to do their work and make them look good in the process. If they see workers drop the ball on one or the other, or worse, to turn the situation to their sdvsntage rather than the company's, they either rewrite the rules, or just get rid of you. Sometimes both.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Hey Trump Economics, awesome idea. "Smells like viral social media":


----------



## UberBeemer

Trump Economics said:


> View attachment 232927
> 
> 
> I don't see how all of this doesn't blow up in Uber's face? If I, for example, agreed to an 80/20 split, how can they not get sued for flipping it to a 20/80 split whenever they feel like it? Thats intentionally operating in bad faith. SOOOOO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Sounds like we have ZERO choice to negotiate. And I, like a lot of you, have ZERO issue telling every single passenger they're being gouged, that there are instances where Uber is taking more than 50 percent commission, and that they should delete Uber. At that point, I'll be working at McDonalds, so I could care less about the demise of this app. Just glad to know Dara is a fake POS (like Travis) - can't say I'm surprised.


California is fighting this, but the real problem is, we all signed the partner agreement, and in that agreement, is language that authorizes the company to make changes without consenting us. We all fell for it. So what do we do? Dust off, and get to work. Make money. Learn the new trends, try to get your grove back. All of this outrage isnt changing one thing.

And customers aren't likely to be sympathetic to what's being called a gouge here, since they wont be paying more.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> Nice rant. And I am the condescending one, huh?
> 
> I never said we're employees. And everything you state more or less confirms that you expect to keep gaming the system and that you expect Uber to like it. And by the way, gaming it isnt shady, necessarily. That is another of your predispositions. I merely point out that the way you want it to work is actually cherry picking, regardless of the way you want to look at it. Can you really deny it? You believe that your time, gas, oil, etc., are worth more to Uber than the average driver. Why would that be true? Do you have anything to offer other than a ride? Your having figured out that your weekly pay is higher because you leave certain customers unserved doesn't make you more valuable, from the standpoint of Uber. They prefer us to take any rider they offer regardless of how clever we are.
> 
> I see so many members here who say with indignation, just like you do, that uber is screwing us, etc., but they are doing everything that they agreed to do when we signed on. And you can bet they read our posts, about how we leave passengers wait until we get that nice multiplier. So what do you expect them to see that as? Something to be rewarded, when it causes customers to grouse about how hard it is to get a ride at times?
> 
> No, they see it as a loophole, and they try to figure out how to close it. That's what the business world has become. A company hires workers (contractors, employees, it doesn't matter) to do their work and make them look good in the process. If they see workers drop the ball on one or the other, or worse, to turn the situation to their sdvsntage rather than the company's, they either rewrite the rules, or just get rid of you. Sometimes both.


Uber can "see" things any way it wants. Doesn't change what _is_ though.

(You seem to "see" things very much the way Uber does, which is, um... interesting...)


----------



## Trump Economics

UberBeemer said:


> California is fighting this, but the real problem is, we all signed the partner agreement, and in that agreement, is language that authorizes the company to make changes without consenting us. We all fell for it. So what do we do? Dust off, and get to work. Make money. Learn the new trends, try to get your grove back. All of this outrage isnt changing one thing.
> 
> And customers aren't likely to be sympathetic to what's being called a gouge here, since they wont be paying more.


I'm not an expert in contract law, but contracts are not enforceable when they cause a Hardship, etc.

Lawyers, regulators, and anyone with a brain is going to pounce. Uber only survives today because of misinformation and propaganda. Once they are seen as a predator, their status as a payday lender will be revealed, and payday loan companies are subject to finance laws.

As much as I would love to go about my day as usual, I can't now, nor ever, agree to Uber taking more than 20%. And if I have to quit, not take a single surge call, etc., then so be it - let the passenger be stranded, let DUI's go up, and have a nice day.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Hey Trump Economics, awesome idea. Smell like viral social media:
> 
> View attachment 232934


in 2016 i has a small tasteful card posted that said, simply, "Tips not required but always greatly appreciated"

That didn't sit well with too many riders. After i took it down, i actually got tipped more often.

Your profile thing probably won't be seen by very many, but i am curious. Let us know if you get positive feedback.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> California is fighting this, but the real problem is, we all signed the partner agreement, and in that agreement, is language that authorizes the company to make changes without consenting us. We all fell for it. So what do we do? Dust off, and get to work. Make money. Learn the new trends, try to get your grove back. All of this outrage isnt changing one thing.
> 
> And customers aren't likely to be sympathetic to what's being called a gouge here, since they wont be paying more.


The hell we do. We let every single pax know they're paying 3x surge for nothing, simply because Uber wants to go public. One story from NY Times, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Uber is in a world of hurt.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Uber can "see" things any way it wants. Doesn't change what _is_ though.
> 
> (You seem to "see" things very much the way Uber does, which is, um... interesting...)


Thats true, but i have owned a business, and worked for a couple of large lawfirms that did a lot of corporate work. It had me rubbing elbows with a lot of MBAs. It was enlightening in many ways.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> So what do we do? Dust off, and get to work. Make money. Learn the new trends, try to get your grove back. All of this outrage isnt changing one thing.


Aye aye!


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> The hell we do. We let every single pax know they're paying 3x surge for nothing, simply because Uber wants to go public. One story from NY Times, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Uber is in a world of hurt.


Ok. Well let us know if you get anything more than a sympathetic look or remark. I tend to think they might see us as Prima Donnas if we go about, crying about a gouge when they see the same prices. Or they might figure we're fishing for tips.



UpoorPeople said:


> Aye aye!
> 
> View attachment 232939


That other boat, is that a lyft, or just a newber trying to beat you to a fare?


----------



## UpoorPeople

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> Ok. Well let us know if you get anything more than a sympathetic look or remark. I tend to think they might see us as Prima Donnas if we go about, crying about a gouge when they see the same prices. Or they might figure we're fishing for tips.


I've never met a group of people with less fight in them than Uber drivers. It's truly embarrassing.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> That other boat, is that a lyft, or just a newber trying to beat you to a fare?


Neither. That's me saying "see ya later". My boat, my rules.


----------



## LA_Native

"Gaming the surge" only a communist or Uber stooge would employ that ridiculous term. 

Considering expenses, this new pay rate seems like it will only incentivize the most desperate.


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

tomatopaste said:


> I've never met a group of people with less fight in them than Uber drivers. It's truly embarrassing.


Most drivers have no idea what they're fighting they just want more pay. To me its very simple. No one knows what this "arbitrary" "service fee" is. Lyft had it listed as $2.50. Now with long pickups this fee could be $30 all to Lyft. Same goes for Uber. This is the issue I have. How are some passengers getting gouged for this fee while going the same distances. We need calculations on this fee. I see nothing on this topic.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

tomatopaste said:


> The hell we do. We let every single pax know they're paying 3x surge for nothing, simply because Uber wants to go public. One story from NY Times, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Uber is in a world of hurt.


Pax just doesnt want to pay surge. not sure they care for the details of the business model if the tab they get is the same


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> "Gaming the surge" only a communist or Uber stooge would employ that ridiculous term.
> 
> Considering expenses, this new pay rate seems like it will only incentivize the most desperate.


Well sorry but i am neither. Tell me, what kind of person calls names of someone they disagree with?



UpoorPeople said:


> Neither. That's me saying "see ya later". My boat, my rules.


I hope it has fewer holes than your theory of what Uber owes you.

Sorry, i couldn't resist.



tomatopaste said:


> I've never met a group of people with less fight in them than Uber drivers. It's truly embarrassing.


There's a lot of fight, but it seems to be here, among one another.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> I hope it has fewer holes than your theory of what Uber owes you.


 Naw, see, if it had holes it would sink. It's not sinking, it's going fast and free into the sunset. What theory about what Uber owes me?



UberBeemer said:


> Sorry, i couldn't resist.


You also couldn't make an intelligible stab at humour. Don't quit your day "gig".


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> What theory about what Uber owes me?
> 
> You also couldn't make an intelligible stab at humour. Don't quit your day "gig".


Its ok brother. Try not to take it so personally. People disagree, its just life.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> "There's a lot of fight, but it seems to be here, among one another.


And the mod's on the ropes. "Count him out ref, count him out!"


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> Tell me, what kind of person calls names of someone they disagree with?.


One who knows the difference between "calling someone a name" and accurately describing Uber apologists.








[/QUOTE]


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> Its ok brother. Try not to take it so personally. People disagree, its just life.


You're sort of like a dollar store Yoda at times.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> You're sort of like a dollar store Yoda at times.


Is this your idea of a humor lesson? Really dude. You aren't used to people disagreeing with you, so you try insults, is that it? I expect you to yell "fake news" at any moment.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Well I made myself chuckle at least. That's gotta count for something.

But why do you take "dollar store Yoda" as an insult? I merely observed that you seem to like to impart words of wisdom to us visitors of your planet.


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> One who knows the difference between "calling someone a name" and accurately describing Uber apologists.
> 
> View attachment 232946


[/QUOTE]
Native, save yourself. I am a communist... and i am coming for your guns.

I am not apilogizing for Uber. But, i am pointing out that there's a lot of carping going on here over something that none of us change by complaining. Your use of labels changes nothing.



UpoorPeople said:


> Why do you take "dollar store Yoda" as an insult?


Wasn't a compliment.


----------



## LA_Native

"Game surging" is a pejorative -- it's use seeks to undermine the ability of drivers to decide the rates -- their ability to choose the price they are willing to use their property for their service.

It seems to me, only individual partial to communism, a Lyft/Uber agent, or a driver who's an unwitting and ignorant stooge to either or both companies would seek to adversely affect the pay rate for drivers by arguing that drivers shouldn't be allowed to work at a rate of their choosing.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> Wasn't a compliment.


Could be a compliment. Yoda was basically the most powerful jedi in the galaxy. If he was worth $100, the dollar store version of him might still be decent.

Folks did have trouble making sense of what he was saying a lot of the time though.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Could be a compliment. Yoda was basically the most powerful jedi in the galaxy. If he was worth $100, the dollar store version of him might still be decent.
> 
> Folks did have trouble making sense of what he was saying a lot of the time though.


I rest my case. I will allow, because its just a little funny.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> Native, save yourself. I am a communist... and i am coming for your guns.
> 
> I am not apilogizing for Uber. But, i am pointing out that there's a lot of carping going on here over something that none of us change by complaining. Your use of labels changes nothingt.


Like you, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

I will tell you "apologist" doesn't mean what you think it means. LoL


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> If you ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese at Mcdonald's and they said it's $20.


I would reply "Now I know why I do not eat at Icky-D's and go to Five Guys, instead. I do not know what came over me when I came here. 'Later........................"



Cableguynoe said:


> Then I'd go get a pizza.


That is a good break from a burger, from time-to-time. The problem is that in the Capital of Your Nation, a decent pizza joint is hard to find.



Fisfis said:


> I drove in the capital of my nation for 7 years. Both Uber and taxi. I started as a leaser in Yellow Cab Fairfax. Then after Uber came in, did that for a while but decided to become a private owner.
> 
> Used to hang out at Reston Hyatt Regency. That was my spot. Yes $3.50 was the drop rate and $2.15 a mile. Yellow would charge us 5% on every card transaction so I bought a tablet and started using square and paypal here.
> 
> I remember 2012, wanted to drive a DC cab but I found out the applications were closed past 5 years. Once Uber came out, they reopened and brought the Dome requirement. I remember like yesterday.
> 
> You had to also go through a 6 week training like New York. Then they dropped the training altogether and started giving same week permits


No wonder you did not make any money; you drove for Neal Nichols. I got away from him after a year and a half and got my D.C. face. I lived in the City, anyhow. I drove in Arlington; both a Banana Boat and a Tomato Can. I dispatched for both, too. The companies could charge the drivers (and they do, here, in fact, I would not call it "charging", I would call what they "charge" the drivers "THEFT". Neal started charging drivers for vouchers back in the mid-1980s, right AFTER I got away from him as a driver (I stayed on a little longer as a dispatcher until my company in D.C. offered me more money. At first, he matched it, then he told me to go. I was making more than his top man at Red Flopp in the morning rush). It was three per-cent, then. At one point, he had it up to ten per-cent. I remember when he told me about it. At first, he would let the drivers reject the voucher jobs. I laughed at him and asked him what his father thought was the purpose of the drivers' paying those ridiculous rents?

They had shut off faces between 2003 and 2012, although they did open it up briefly in 2007. The H-plates were also frozen in 2003. What was funny was that under Dear Revered Leader Kin il-Fenty, the number of cabs out there increased. He and a certain person from Atlanta were well aware of all of the unlicenced drivers out there and encouraged them. The guy from Atlanta helped to bring them in to the City. When Gray came in 2011, the number of illegals (what we call the unlicenced drivers) began to drop. Once Uber came, those who could get financing bought Town Cars and started to drive for Black. Then came the taxis, but only in the City. When X came, even more of the illegals went that way, as Arlington and Fairfax Buy Here/Pay Here lots are so full of three to eight year old Camrys that they must park them on the streets. In addition to the illegals, many of the suburban cab drivers went to UberX, as the rates were not bad for the drivers, when X launched. The historic mistreatment of the drivers by the suburban companies, especially the Nichols companies and Barwood, had many drivers' parking their rental cabs and Buying Here/Paying Here and driving UberX. Neal and Lee had to drop their rental rates markédly. The rates are pretty bad, now. The business holds up, but, on base rates, you, the driver are really getting reamed.

At one point, Fairfax Yellow was the Original Hippie Cab Company. Some of them hung around after Murphy Brothers sold it, but many of them left. I was by Hillwood and Annandale the other day and noticed that the cabs were gone. Usually, you used to see a bunch of wrecks parked there. Perhaps Neal had to sell it to pay some bills.

I hate those third world top lights. The DFHV (successor agency to the D.C. Taxicab Commision) has allowed us to revert to the older style lights. At some point, I am going to do it.



Ziggy said:


> It would never be me;


I am not stating that you would be the guy to do it, I am stating that given your training and background, you would know what conditions give rise to this type of action. You might even be able to spot potential drivers who might do something such as what you describe.



tomatopaste said:


> This ain't gonna fly with California regulators. Taxi companies can't just quadruple fares whenever they want more money.


California is one of the few places where the TNCs are subject to some form of regulation; New York City is the other. Perhaps the legislators and regulators want more than what Uber is willing to pay to keep regulation away from it.



Trump Economics said:


> Lawyers, regulators, and anyone with a brain is going to pounce.
> 
> Uber only survives today because of misinformation *, "arrangements" with politicians and regulators* and propaganda.


The only places in this country where Uber is subject to more than a little regulation are California and New York City.

FIFY



UpoorPeople said:


> "The beatings will continue until morale improves."


"Row well, and live, Number Forty-One"


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> "Game surging" is a pejorative -- it's use is seeks to undermine the ability of drivers to decide the rates their ability to choose the price they are willing to use their property for their service.
> 
> It seems to me, only individual partial to communism, a Lyft/Uber agent, or a driver who's an unwitting and ignorant stooge to either or both companies would seek to adversely affect the pay rate for drivers by arguing that drivers shouldn't be allowed to work at a rate of their choosing.


Um, what?
Gaming the surge accurately describes the activity of passing on rides until a desired multiplier is offered. Its basically cherry picking. My calling it as what it is has nothing to do with sympathy for either or any company dude. It has to do with calling it as i see it. We all do it, some do nothing but. Which is why some seem extra upset that uber has their number and is changing the playing field.

If you see it as pejorative, that's your perspective, and not the context used. I merely described what's going on.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> But, i am pointing out that there's a lot of carping going on here over something that none of us change by complaining


Uber snookered us again, darn it. Well nothing we can do about it now, might as well just grab our ankles and smile, as usual.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> Um, what?
> Gaming the surge accurately describes the activity of passing on rides until a desired multiplier is offered. Its basically cherry picking. My calling it as what it is has nothing to do with sympathy for either or any company dude. It has to do with calling it as i see it. We all do it, some do nothing but. Which is why those seem extra upset that uber has their number and is changing the playing field.


Right, I know what you mean. Drivers shouldn't be allowed to "cherry pick" or freely choose a rate they deem acceptable.


----------



## NoPooPool

hulksmash said:


> I expected Uber to simply act as an intermediary party between drivers and pax, and just take a fair percentage of the transaction like they did in the early days. I also expected them to simply allow market conditions to determine prices (which is what surge was supposed to be for). After all, this is what sites like Amazon and EBay do, just take a cut and not set the market. When constant surges appeared as a result of several rate cuts (and fewer driver) , I expected them to get the hint that rates were too low and to simply raise them up until market equilibrium was reached. Drivers waiting for surge should've been seen as a message that they were unwilling to work for low wages so they should've adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Instead, in an effort to placate pax, they subsidizes rides to artificially lower rates during high demand times, so both Uber and the drivers were making less than they should've. I expected Uber to realize the strategy was not sustainable and to just raise rates to what the true cost of a ride should be. Now that they've lost too much money subsidizing rides, they are coming up with a way to screw the drivers. If the company had been managed right from the beginning, they should have been easily able to profit with a 25% cut and no vehicle expenses. Surges weren't a problem because when rates were allowed to be raised organically, Uber's cut increased as well. I expected someone to get that hint





hulksmash said:


> I expected Uber to simply act as an intermediary party between drivers and pax, and just take a fair percentage of the transaction like they did in the early days. I also expected them to simply allow market conditions to determine prices (which is what surge was supposed to be for). After all, this is what sites like Amazon and EBay do, just take a cut and not set the market. When constant surges appeared as a result of several rate cuts (and fewer driver) , I expected them to get the hint that rates were too low and to simply raise them up until market equilibrium was reached. Drivers waiting for surge should've been seen as a message that they were unwilling to work for low wages so they should've adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Instead, in an effort to placate pax, they subsidizes rides to artificially lower rates during high demand times, so both Uber and the drivers were making less than they should've. I expected Uber to realize the strategy was not sustainable and to just raise rates to what the true cost of a ride should be. Now that they've lost too much money subsidizing rides, they are coming up with a way to screw the drivers. If the company had been managed right from the beginning, they should have been easily able to profit with a 25% cut and no vehicle expenses. Surges weren't a problem because when rates were allowed to be raised organically, Uber's cut increased as well. I expected someone to get that hint


[="UberBeemer, post: 3983319, member: 32318"]

Not sure where you get that from what i said. My point is, i guess in simplest terms, uber never promised us a rose garden, and when they learned that many drivers learned to play by their own parameters, Uber did what any company would, and changed the rules.[/QUOTE]


UberBeemer said:


> Its kind of how the world works, no? Companies see workers as tools like a carpenter sees a hammer. Some hammers last longer than others, but they need to drive the nails. Maybe its a brad right now, or a sinker next. But if somehow, the hammer didn't want to drive the picture nail, and they had a lot of pictures to hang, they'd just get a new hammer.
> 
> It sucks, but the hammer that doesn't wiff on the brads or the picture nails or the sinkers, gets to ride around in the good toolbox, while the one that only wanted sinkers might get rusty.
> 
> NoPooPool said:
> Beemer, your analogy with the BS regarding carpenters, and different types of nails, and different types of hammers, and the applications that each type of nail and each type of hammer are used for goes on and on.
> 
> "It's kind of how the world works"? Somewhat, but not usually to the degree that Uber attempts to pull on drivers that allow their blatant stealing, whenever and wherever they can get away with it.
> 
> Let me reiterate my point. As a company they are as dirty as the come.
> 
> As far as "It's kind of how the world works", that is quite a generalization.
> 
> Back in 1979, I was hired by a company called UPS. I am sure you have heard of them. Well, when I walked in the door for my first day of classroom training, the very first thing they tell you is our company name is United Parcel Service, and service is our last name. The next thing they tell you is that the company expects a fair days work, for a fair days pay.
> 
> Although a company such as that will do everything in their power to work you to death, they will be FAIR with your pay. With Uber, it is the exact opposite. They will do everything in their power to attempt to get a driver to drive for next to nothing, if you allow them to, while at the same time they change the rules to suit themselves whenever they can, and as they steal as much as they can from both drivers and passengers.
> 
> Finally, one more thing that nobody is pointing out, as drivers are being described as cherry picking and gaming the system, while a disclaimer is thrown out there, as to not trying to sound like a shill, is the house holds all the cards, and the edge on the odds keeps getting better for the house with each change of the rules of the game............
> 
> While knowledge is power, and drivers that have some savey will use whatever knowledge they have to increase their earnings, the biggest edge the house holds against us as supposed IC's is DRIVERS DO NOT SEE THE DESTINATION OF THE RIDER UNTIL WE SLIDE THE START BAR. That is without even taking in to consideration that we do not see pax ratings in the Chicago market. Another kick in the teeth to keep us as their (indentured) servants.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> My calling it as what it is has nothing to do with sympathy for either or any company dude.


 Yes it does. You calling it "gaming" or "cherry picking" is just that, you calling something legitimate by other names. But that's in no way necessarily what it is. You've just knowingly () or unknowingly adopted your master's mindset and vocab.

The thing about the expression "cherry picking" is, why would _anyone_ pick stinking, rotten cherries infested with worms as well as the good ones anyway? Just to "be fair" to the tree?


UberBeemer said:


> Which is why those seem extra upset that uber has their number and is changing the playing field.


 See? You seem strangely gleeful about this. "Yess masterr!!"

Uber has a number alright. It's $4.5 billion in losses last year. It's changing the playing field because it has proven unfit and unable to get anywhere near the goal line on the previous 10 iterations of playing fields.

It's after midnight E.T. Do you get overtime?


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> Like you, I have no idea what you're babbling about.
> 
> I will tell you "apologist" doesn't mean what you think it means. LoL


At least i am not babbling about communism. Or asserting that someone is trying to adversely affect anyones pay.

You go on and keep cherry picking. Just don't act so surprised when Uber gets tired of it and changes whether that is going to remain profitable to the extent it has been. The only rate you will ever earn driving for them is going to be whatever they decide to make available. I am just the messenger. Childish use of names like stooge or communist might make you feel slick or something, but its what people with no real point try to use when they've got nothing.



UpoorPeople said:


> Yes it does. You calling it "gaming" or "cherry picking" is just that, you calling something legitimate by other names. But that's in no way necessarily what it is. You've just knowingly () or unknowingly adopted your master's mindset and vocab.
> 
> The thing about the expression "cherry picking" is, why would _anyone_ pick stinking, rotten cherries infested with worms as well as the good ones anyway? Just to "be fair" to the tree?
> See? You seem strangely gleeful about this. "Yess masterr!!"
> 
> Uber has a number alright. It's $4.5 billion in losses last year. It's changing the playing field because it has proven unfit and unable to get anywhere near the goal line on the previous 10 iterations of playing fields.
> 
> It's after midnight E.T. Do you get overtime?


Upoor, this must be the part where i recognize that guys like you and LA will say anything to sound like they're "winning", or just keep grasping and hoping that I will walk away. Sorry that you don't like the call out. But, if you pass jobs offered you're cherry picking. And i get it. Its lucrative if you can score all the high surges. But, that doesn't make it anything else. So there you go. Got another star wars reference? Or maybe I'm a communist? Whatever. At least when i cherry pick, i can own it. And when the company fiddles with terms, i can accept that i agreed three years ago to a contract that consents to it.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> At least i am not babbling about communism. Or asserting that someone is trying to adversely affect anyones pay.
> 
> .


That's because you seem ignorant of the meaning of the words "communism" and "stooge."

It's pretty simple: you don't agree that drivers should be allowed to work at rate of their choosing.

Instead, you prefer to undermine drivers, who merely wait for a rate they find acceptable, by insisting they're partaking in some undefined term made up by uber to imply some ominous behavior.


----------



## Fisfis

UberBeemer said:


> Excellent point. If the ride was worth $20 10 minutes ago, why is it worth $60 right now?. But, the more important part is, with all the effort and overhead on your dime, why does Uber feel it's ok to cut uou out of most of the money, regardless of surge or otherwise?


The majority of drivers are not chasing a $20 ride to become $120 or whatever.

Almost 95% of drivers would be content and stop around if the rates were raised to an acceptable level with ZERO surge and they'd be done with it.

Nobody's after screwing the pax here. We just want to make a livable income like we supposed to. Raising the rates back to $2 before commission would be enough to cut off 95% of the noise.

Yes, Uber is after profitability but we're too. Don't forget those people believed in this business model and invested in newer model vehicles without knowing that in less than a year they'd see rate cuts every single year.

Keep in mind this business requires investment. People are putting their hard earned money, sweat to do this job and taking financial risks.

Rideshare driving is not a zero cost, low skilled service industry gig like waiting on tables where you could just throw in the towel and off when things don't go your way.

The companies themselves are the ones disrupting the market. Nobody told them to charge more when the sun goes up or down. Surge was supposed to be an incentive to help drivers make more roi and keep them on the road to control demand.

Now someone is telling me that incentive will not be split fairly from now on although it was SOLELY designed to entice me to stay on the road.

Guess what? If this surge crap comes to LA, I won't. And I know many will drop it like a bad habit. One bedroom apartments are not going for $600 here like Arizona.

Don't you underestimate the power of word of mouth. Besides the pax, drivers have families too. What feedback working drivers will give to new candidates, if they are trying to get out? They'll say "don't bother."

I doubt that the new surge model will ever happen in LA market. If it does, it will be the end of Uber/Lyft or they'll have to find a hybrid model that will convince the drivers to stay. They cannot recruit drivers faster than the ones that quit.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

LA_Native said:


> That's because you seem ignorant of the meaning of the words "communism" and "stooge."
> 
> It's pretty simple: you don't agree that drivers should be allowed to work at rate of their choosing.
> 
> Instead, you prefer to undermine drivers, who merely wait for a rate they find acceptable, by insisting they're partaking in some undefined term made up by uber to imply some ominous behavior.


LA_Native In war you must know your enemy. I think UberBeamer speaks the POV of uber.

Fisfis hope your right, but I think most ants will drive more to 'make it up' versus be able to step away


----------



## UberBeemer

Wait one more question, maybe two. How much should it cost to create a global company and how fast should it become profitable? If you know maybe give Dara a call instead of arguing semantics with me.


----------



## LA_Native

IthurstwhenIP said:


> LA_Native In war you must know your enemy. I think UberBeamer speaks the POV of uber.
> 
> Fisfis hope your right, but I think most ants will drive more to 'make it up' versus be able to step away


It appears that (s)he shares Uber's POV.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> The only rate you will ever earn driving for them is going to be whatever they decide to make available. *I am just the messenger. *


 Wait, you're actually coming right out and admitting it?



UberBeemer said:


> But, if you pass jobs offered you're cherry picking. At least when i cherry pick, i can own it. And when the company fiddles with terms, i can accept that i agreed three years ago to a contract that consents to it.


You told Uber three years ago that you'd accept every ride they sent you? I never agreed to take every ride, so I'm good.



UberBeemer said:


> Got another star wars reference?


Uber Wan KenUber?


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> That's because, like you're ignorant of the meaning of "apologist, you seem ignorant of the meaning of the words "communism" and "stooge."
> 
> It's pretty simple: you don't agree that drivers should be allowed to work at rate of their choosing.
> 
> Instead, you prefer to undermine drivers, who merely wait for a rate they find acceptable, by insisting they're partaking in some undefined term made up by uber to imply some ominous behavior.


Now, you're just being confrontàtional. Where did i write that you have to take every trip? And where do you get off telling me what i understand or meant?

You are trying to build a case on things i didn't actually say.

Do you want to keep going, being confrontational, calling a moderator names, and see where that goes?



UpoorPeople said:


> Wait, you're actually coming right out and admitting it?


I admit that they determine your available rate. Yes.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> Do you want to keep going, being confrontational, calling a moderator names, and see where that goes?


LoL


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> It appears that (s)he shares Uber's POV.


My point all along, you would do well to try to understand how the business world works, you will spare yourself a fair amount of aggrevation.


----------



## OGT

HELL YEAH I'm driving during the new surge system. I will only be in $20 zone with my DF set to .5 miles away. Those will be the unicorn rides now. Actually, that would be great lol. Long distance notification will be the new Uber POOL notification lol. Just watch the timer time out lol.


----------



## UberBeemer

IthurstwhenIP said:


> LA_Native In war you must know your enemy. I think UberBeamer speaks the POV of uber.
> 
> Fisfis hope your right, but I think most ants will drive more to 'make it up' versus be able to step away


For the record, I am not your enemy.


----------



## UberBeemer

Fisfis said:


> The majority of drivers are not chasing a $20 ride to become $120 or whatever.
> 
> Almost 95% of drivers would be content and stop fking around if the rates were raised to an acceptable level with ZERO surge and they'd be done with it.
> 
> Nobody's after screwing the pax here. We just want to make a livable income like we supposed to. Raising the rates back to $2 before commission would be enough to cut off 95% of the noise.
> 
> Yes, Uber is after profitability but we're too. Don't forget those people believed in this business model and invested in newer model vehicles without knowing that in less than a year they'd see rate cuts every single year.
> 
> Keep in mind this business requires investment. People are putting their hard earned money, sweat to do this job and taking financial risks.
> 
> Rideshare driving is not a zero cost, low skilled service industry gig like waiting on tables where you could just throw in the towel and *** off when things don't go your way.
> 
> The companies themselves are the ones disrupting the market. Nobody told them to charge more when the sun goes up or down. Surge was supposed to be an incentive to help drivers make more roi and keep them on the road to control demand.
> 
> Now someone is telling me that incentive will not be split fairly from now on although it was SOLELY designed to entice me to stay on the road.
> 
> Guess what? If this surge crap comes to LA, I won't. And I know many will drop it like a bad habit. One bedroom apartments are not going for $600 here like Arizona.
> 
> Don't you underestimate the power of word of mouth. Besides the pax, drivers have families too. What feedback working drivers will give to new candidates, if they are trying to get out? They'll say "don't bother."
> 
> I doubt that the new surge model will ever happen in LA market. If it does, it will be the end of Uber/Lyft or they'll have to find a hybrid model that will convince the drivers to stay. They cannot recruit drivers faster than the ones that quit.


I see a lot of members here already telling newbies to quit while they're ahead. Its sad, because to me, this forum used to represent the best, and was a place people would offer advice, and be generally supportive. Lately, you got so many members who just like to argue, and others that think they got all the angles worked out and go nuts when you suggest there's elements they hadn't considered.

Uber has done a job of convincing some that they can make big money, and i know some of us do pretty well. But i also think this is something you have to be able to commit to, and be able to do without risking your family's ability to make ends meet. Most jobs don't promise you will always get raises, let alone that your pay or opportunities won't diminish over time.



IthurstwhenIP said:


> Did it come out like that? You just can grok the Uber think and it makes you prepared. Thought your posts were pretty good for a Chicago guy.


No that was for the kids.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> My point all along, you would do well to try to understand how the business world works, you will spare yourself a fair amount of aggrevation.


them you've done a miserable job of articulating your point.


----------



## UberBeemer

LA_Native said:


> them you've done a miserable job of articulating your point.


Maybe. Maybe you two did a miserable job understanding it, and just like to argue. No matter.


----------



## JayAre

AllGold said:


> Is the weather controlled by a large corporation?


Yes is the short answer


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> and just like to argue.


yet, you initiated this conversation...


----------



## UberBeemer

Do you need the last word, too?


----------



## SRGuy

Just imagine how much worse it will be for pax when the new surge model kicks in. I'm kicking back, waiting for a good long ride - so far got a 2.3 pool that I refused - and I'm not moving unless I get a long surge to SF. Have turned down 60 trips in 20 minutes. If new surge model was in place I wouldn't be online. Wait time on pax app when I was letting the time countdown was 15 minutes.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

tomatopaste said:


> Uber will keep bending over drivers as long as drivers keep bending over. From a pure self-respect aspect, how can any driver accept this? Drivers should 1. not drive if Uber implements this, and 2. let every pax know that the 4x surge they're paying is all going to Uber.


If it's a LONG trip and you have some rapport with the pax, And find out they're paying a lot, this is when you offer to drive them out of the surge, then have them reping you at base. Do this for a decent tip.

They save money, they learn the truth about Uber, and you both come out better.

Or, if you're someone who already does cash or square trips, do that after driving them 3 blocks. I'm too worried about insurance, but I know many drivers do this.

FYI if you did have an accident, claim you accidentally ended the trip. It's not true that you aren't covered if this happens, at least in markets that have laws in place covering timeshare. Usually the wording in the law will require it to be on effect until the pax exit your vehicle. App glitches do happen and you have to be covered for them.


----------



## Robkaaa

I don't know if someone came up with an idea(did not read all pages of this thread yet) to screw Uber, by driving rider out of the surge area and ask them to re-requst the drive, so rider will not pay that much to uner because there is no diffrencdi for driver. I'm 100% positive that amount of tips will increase. Yes, little bit of a hassle, but that's how we can fight it.


----------



## LA_Native

UberBeemer said:


> Do you need the last word, too?


looks like you do.


----------



## tomatopaste

UpoorPeople said:


> Yes it does. You calling it "gaming" or "cherry picking" is just that, you calling something legitimate by other names. But that's in no way necessarily what it is. You've just knowingly () or unknowingly adopted your master's mindset and vocab.
> 
> The thing about the expression "cherry picking" is, why would _anyone_ pick stinking, rotten cherries infested with worms as well as the good ones anyway? Just to "be fair" to the tree?
> See? You seem strangely gleeful about this. "Yess masterr!!"
> 
> Uber has a number alright. It's $4.5 billion in losses last year. It's changing the playing field because it has proven unfit and unable to get anywhere near the goal line on the previous 10 iterations of playing fields.
> 
> It's after midnight E.T. Do you get overtime?


And notice Uber is keeping the surge price for the pax but stiffing the driver. Uber hasn't gone legit, they're the same morally bankrupt company as always. They aren't raising fares to a sustainable level, they're trying to get more blood from a turnip, the driver.

Over the years Uber's driver pool has become weaker and weaker as Uber scrapes the bottom of the workforce barrel. This has allowed Uber to get away with virtually anything as the driver pool is too weak to even muster a peep. That drivers would roll over on something this huge though, is absolutely dumbfounding.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> Lately, you got so many members who just like to argue, and others that think they got all the angles worked out and go nuts when you suggest there's elements they hadn't considered.


Then stop arguing if you don't like it. Some of us don't mind, especially when someone (you) comes out telling them "what's what", starts labeling their behaviour and telling them what their motivations are.

And don't flatter yourself, you haven't presented any "elements" people here "haven't considered".

"Uber has done a *snow*job of convincing some that they can make big money, and i know* a few of *us *did* (past tense) *just* *ok, but I'm going to try like hell to make it sound a lot better than it actually was*." Fixed that for ya.



UberBeemer said:


> Most jobs don't promise you will always get raises, let alone that your pay or opportunities won't diminish over time.


Most jobs don't promise that your earnings will always diminish, and that the terms of engagement may change every few weeks if they're not diminishing fast enough.


----------



## Bus Bozo

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Most drivers have no idea what they're fighting they just want more pay. To me its very simple. No one knows what this "arbitrary" "service fee" is. Lyft had it listed as $2.50. Now with long pickups this fee could be $30 all to Lyft. Same goes for Uber. This is the issue I have. How are some passengers getting gouged for this fee while going the same distances. We need calculations on this fee. I see nothing on this topic.


I just posted about this same thing on another thread. I don't know what drivers could do about it, but if the pax started to get a "payment breakdown".....hmmmm.


----------



## RideshareSpectrum

tomatopaste said:


> No, the conversation goes where I want it to go. Stop acting as if everything is out of your control.
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax: *Wow, that sucks, for you. Then why do you still drive?
> *Tomato:* I don't drive very much but when I do I try to get business pax like yourself going downtown or to the airport.
> *Pax:* So, how are we looking time wise, still good?
> *Tomato: *Yeah we're good. You realize it sucks for you more than it sucks for me?
> *Pax: *Really, how?
> *Tomato: *You know how it now takes twenty minutes to get an Uber whereas before it only took 2 minutes?
> *Pax: *Yeah
> *Tomato: *And is it costing you more to get to the airport these days or less?
> *Pax: *Way more! Now it's always 4x's surge!
> *Tomato:* That's because there's no incentive for drivers to drive anymore.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge because drivers have no incentive to drive and Uber is pocketing the entire fare instead of using it to incentivize more drivers to go online?
> *Tomato: *Yuppers.
> *Pax:* Wow, I didn't think about it like that, you're right, it does suck more for me.
> *Tomato:* Yuppers. And I'm always right.


Had to log in after reading your posts in this thread,.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Looks like they called in for support .


----------



## RideshareSpectrum

tomatopaste said:


> The pax does care when he's getting ripped off. That's why drivers need to explain to the pax how he, the pax, is getting ripped off. Pax understand supply and demand and when it's busy they can either wait or pay more to get a ride now. This is not the case with the new surge policy. Pax is still paying the surge premium but Uber is not using it incentivize drivers to go online, they're just pocketing it. Every. Single. Pax. will be livid if drivers are able to explain this to them.


You are getting it twisted. You dont need to have an advanced degree to wrap your head around the reality that PAX arent the ones getting ripped off. They are being charged exactly how much Uber believes they are willing to pay, and their presence in your Prius is a glaring indicator that they are fine with the up front terms. 
Now, if you continue to drive under these new conditions that sends the clear message to Uber that you are fine with the new arrangement whereby Uber charges PAX in the same manner yet pays you less... and when you accept that ping you are complicit. At EOD its drivers getting ripped off, not PAX.. who btw could not possibly care any less. 
I have a rock bottom acceptable rate for which im willing to trade my time and I may or may not be ok with the new surge. We'll see. Whats your rock bottom?



tomatopaste said:


> Valid argument. Here's the problem. If you ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese at Mcdonald's and they said it's $20. You'd be all like WFT, why is it $20?! And then when they said: well it's surge pricing cause we need to get the stock price up. You'd be all like WFT?!


Poor analogy. First off, even 3x surge which i rarely ever see is still right around the price of a cab. 
Secondly, if someone paid $20 for a QP they must have been really hungry and that would be one tasty burger in their minds eye, maybe even the best they ever had. You couldnt tell them otherwise, and if you did they would be offended. Why?
Nobody likes to hear that they got suckered, especially by the person delivering services for the company that suckered them.


----------



## Koolbreze

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


It's about time Uber trys to end the cherry picking.


----------



## Ziggy

Another Uber Driver said:


> I am not stating that you would be the guy to do it, I am stating that given your training and background, you would know what conditions give rise to this type of action. You might even be able to spot potential drivers who might do something such as what you describe.


Yeah, I guess my background would put me in a better position than most to suspect someone's "postal" tendencies. Unfortunately, as recent events have shown many seemingly "normal " people all of a sudden snapped; though likely they had been unraveling a little bit over a long period. And the people who know them best tend to brush it under the rug as a phase they are going through.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the postal driver turned out to be a veteran 3+ year driver - someone who likely bought a new car to do BLACK or BLACK SUV and snapped when he/she realized that Uber kept on recruiting more drivers to drive BLACK even though his/her market was saturated and most BLACK drivers were lucky to get 1-2 Black trips a day and now he/she was forced to also drive X to try and make ends meet. *had it not been for the recent YouTube shooter (who was female) I would have assumed that the potential postal driver would be male.

And possibly the postal driver could be someone not directly driving for Uber (like a cabbie- as 5 have committed suicide in the past 5 months in NYC).

No one ever thought that the Uber slogan "Life changing money" meant that as a result of Uber they'd end up in the poor house (yes, Virginia that's life changing; just not the change you expected or wanted).


----------



## Cynergie

IERide said:


> Yup.. Uber fought back against all the drivers 'gaming' surge, and the drivers have lost..
> Now the drivers will figure out ways to game this new system for a few extra pennies, and Uber will fight back, making it even worse..
> Before you know it, all the "career" drivers will be gone and all that will be left is "side gig" drivers.. Just like Uber wants..
> 
> As to your question "why isnt this the main thing we are talking about?" - Because talking about the weather doesn't change it.


Yes but isn't this the exact point of a gig economy?


> gig e·con·o·my
> _noun_
> 
> a labor market characterized by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work as opposed to permanent jobs.


When the prevalence of said short term contracts dries up (due to factors like market saturation of contractors, market collapse due to pax emigration to lower cost of living area etc.) then the subsequent imbalance created in the labor market results in job loss. i.e. the driver's. aka YOURS.

Technically, if you're dedicating 8hr+ per week to Uber then you've employed yourself FT.

Which means you have 24hr - 8hr aka less than or equal to 16hrs to dedicate towards finding a REAL job every day.....

Like all rideshare and Amazon Flex/Prime related jobs, the gig economy was meant to supplement and not substitute for a real 40 hr a week job with benefits. Drivers who "test drive" this latest reverse Ponzi scheme will continue victimizing themselves--as Uber cheers them on from the sidelines.

Better off spending that first week the new surge hits your area by investing into finding a better job that

1. doesn't depend on a customer's disposable income and
2. doesn't depend on a customer's extremely fickle disposition towards you and
3. pays you actual benefits.

There are several alternatives in the transportation--correction: "tech" by Uber's self definition--industry that fit that criteria.

Regardless, a gig economy is an excellent short term solution to a recessed economy. But Uber's problem is that being the 2nd largest gig economy employer (2nd to Amazon), it's constrained by the very market and industry which it created. Unlike Amazon, the service (rideshare) Uber provides in meeting customer demand, is limited by the size of its pax rider base. And particularly pax disposable income based on the cost of living in that market. Growing the pax rider base means offering the cheapest rides. Offering the cheapest rides means

1. subsidizing pax rides with investor dollars,
2. playing equity accounting games (like Khosrowshahi did a psuedo IPO by successfully offloading 15% of the company's logistics nightmare to SoftBank last year), and/or
3. screwing the drivers with punitive, Machiavellian tactics.

After 9 years and questionably profitable business model, Uber can no longer be considered the non transportation, StartUp.com it marketed itself to be. Both Wall Street & Silicon Valley have become very savvy on the profitability of the rideshare market to date. Financial support from #1 is a challenge Uber didn't have to face back in 2009. Number 2 can still provide reliable investor dollars. But is time intensive and complicated to implement. And also comes at the expense of less equity for any original private investors. Which leaves #3 --the easiest means by which Uber can improve profitability and save costs on its vast overhead. Because it's far easier for a monarch to torture and overtax his peasantry, than dare abuse other Lords of the realm.

The driverless bot vehicle is on the back burner for now. Which would imply Uber is just getting started on a new culling wave ---where it's personally taken the responsibility to slit driver's throats.....

Current surge policy is definitely a backhanded slap to drivers who were gaming the surge. Enforcing this punitive policy will unquestionably hurt Uber's future growth and profitability capabilities. Causing Uber to resort to even more punitive, cannibalistic policies. Alienating/culling more vet drivers, causing Uber to onboard even more new drivers. It's a vicious circle spiraling in on itself.


----------



## NoPooPool




----------



## UpoorPeople

Cynergie said:


> ... Causing Uber to resort to even more punitive, cannibalistic policies... It's a vicious circle spiraling in on itself.


It's an Uberboros.


----------



## tomatopaste

RideshareSpectrum said:


> PAX arent the ones getting ripped off


Nonsense. The only reason pax are ok with this is because they are unaware of the surge policy change. If pax knew they were paying 4x surge for no reason they would be livid.

Do you think the taxi industry is just going to sit idly by while Uber is allowed to quadruple fares just because they want to?



UpoorPeople said:


> Looks like they called in for support .


I did see the bat signal go out around midnight


----------



## Ziggy

IthurstwhenIP said:


> Fisfis hope your right, but I think most ants will drive more to 'make it up' versus be able to step away


Ditto & Ditto. Unfortunately, less than 1% of all USA drivers are members on this forum; and even fewer know how to figure if they are profitable


----------



## excel2345

Uber's Guber said:


> My great-great grandmother had reservations about the horseless carriage. My great-grandmother had reservations about ATM cards. My grandmother had reservations about cell phones. My mother had reservations about computers. The billions before them grew into the technology without batting an eye.


But can uber/lyft wait a generation for acceptance of sdc's like your ancestors did for their new products?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Fisfis said:


> Almost 95% of drivers would be content and stop around if the rates were raised to an acceptable level with ZERO surge and they'd be done with it. Raising the rates back to $2 before commission would be enough to cut off 95% of the noise.
> 
> They cannot recruit drivers faster than the ones that quit.


The first two lines get a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As you hacked, you know that cab rates are what they are for a reason. What is more, you had to pay Neal's ridiculous rents and other charges. Everything there always was done at the maximum inconvenience of the driver. When the alternative showed up (Uber), Neal (and Lee) paid for his [rectal *aperturetude*] when they lost more than a few drivers. Of course, after the last few rounds of pay cuts, some of them did go crawling back to Neal (and Lee), but, some stayed. We DO have an advantage over the average TNC driver.

I always suspected that there were such things as someone less principled than either Neal or Lee. Now, I have to deal with someone like that.

As for the last line; s far, both F_*ub*_*a*_*r*_ and Gr_*yft*_ have managed to onboard them faster than they lose them. That might be coming to an end, as, in my last few visits to the Green Light Centre in this market, I have noticed far fewer drivers' being onboarded than even six months back. Still, though, it seems that they are doing somewhat better than keeping pace. One way that they have been doing this is lowering standards for vehicles. At some point, they may have to lower standards for drivers. The last is likely why they do not want the Law Enforcement background checks. If the TNCs start to accept the worse drivers, the insurance carrier may have something to say about it. The TNCs will simply pay the higher premiums by cutting the drivers' pay, yet again, while charging the customers the same, or, even more.



Koolbreze said:


> It's about time Uber trys to end the cherry picking.


Churchill once made a statement to the effect that complained about his side having to act the "gentleman, with all of its disadvantages" while the other side acted "like the scoundrel, with all of its advantages". As long as F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* continue in the scoundrelous conduct, I will continue with mine. When the TNCs want to play fairly, I will.



tomatopaste said:


> Do you think the taxi industry is just going to sit idly by while Uber is allowed to quadruple fares just because they want to?


The cab business did not "sit idly by" when Uber first appeared. Unfortunately for the cab business, the principals at Uber made "arrangements", so thyr complaints were rebuffed. A ruling by a judge in Indiana, through which even someone who received a "C" in Eighth Grade Civics could see, is an example of the proverbial fix's being put.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Then stop arguing if you don't like it. Some of us don't mind, especially when someone (you) comes out telling them "what's what", starts labeling their behaviour and telling them what their motivations are.
> 
> And don't flatter yourself, you haven't presented any "elements" people here "haven't considered".
> 
> "Uber has done a *snow*job of convincing some that they can make big money, and i know* a few of *us *did* (past tense) *just* *ok, but I'm going to try like hell to make it sound a lot better than it actually was*." Fixed that for ya.
> 
> Most jobs don't promise that your earnings will always diminish, and that the terms of engagement may change every few weeks if they're not diminishing fast enough.


Putting more words in my mouth. Go ahead. Run with it. I made my point, you made yours. Despite what either of us say, and in spite of the fact that you cannot seem to tolerate opposing opinions, none of us will ever earn more from uber than uber will allow. Revise your strategies, and enjoy it while it lasts, and when they change terms again we can all just come back and read this thread. We won't really have to change a lot.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UberBeemer said:


> none of us will ever earn more from uber than uber will allow.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## excel2345

Wonkytonk said:


> Their actions are too drastic and far too objectionable to be seen as acceptable normal business practice.
> 
> In fact the gig economy as a whole is falling under increased scrutiny. A quick search on regulating the gig economy returns over 170K results.
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/ybma8yvg


What we really need is a change in the arbitration act. Since drivers, or riders, can't go to arbitration as a group(class) arbitration as written basically wipes out drivers rights. Even if arbitration is required filing as a class would allow drivers to get legal assistance where as an individual it would be extremely cost prohibitive. The supreme court recently let the arbitration rules stand because that is how the act was written, not necessarily because it is right.

Arbitration might save the company money and expedite a solution to a problem and that's fine. Requiring that each case be brought by an individual and apply only to that individual is not fine.

An act that was written and approved in 1926 should probably be revisited by Congress and brought up to date for today's environment. I am confident that the original intent was not to deprive many thousands of Americans the right to be heard on an issue.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> ...you cannot seem to tolerate opposing opinions.


But the legal definition of "independent contractor" isn't an opinion, so calling you on that isn't intolerance of an opinion, it's correction of a factual error.

For someone who says arguing is a shame, you sure like to argue alot.



UberBeemer said:


> none of us will ever earn more from uber than uber will allow.


... and Uber won't earn more from me than I will allow. But here's the thing you're missing: I _do_ earn more from Uber than it is _happy_ about, while the opposote _has not been_ and _will not be_ the case. I hold, and each one of us holds, that card, whether we realize it or not. And this is what both you and Uber seem to be so butthurt about when you whine about "cherry picking" and "gaming the system".



UberBeemer said:


> Revise your strategies, and enjoy it while it lasts, and when they change terms again we can all just come back and read this thread. We won't really have to change a lot.


More pearls of wisdom. Seems that Uber's the party that's in perpetual strategy revision overdrive, no?


----------



## UberBeemer

A key reason why these companies use an arbitration clause besides expediency, is that they can single each of us out, and so that even if by some miracle an arbitor sees it our way, it's all closed and private. You'd have to sign a gag order, yo ensure you don't tell everyone how you won or what you were awarded. They have perverted the intent of why arbitration exists.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


^^^^^^^is^^obvious^^^^^^^^and^^the^^opposite^^is^^also^^true^^^^^^so^^is^^that^^your^^only^^point?^^


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> But the legal definition of "independent contractor" isn't an opinion, so calling you on that isn't intolerance of an opinion, it's correction of a factual error.


I think i said "like an employee" or, "like employees" or something to that effect. I never stated we are emoloyees.

And i am not the one butthurt. I am calling the surge game cherry picking, and gaming, because it is. That's a descriptive, and not a moral judgement.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> I think i said "like an employee" or, "like employees" or something to that effect. I never stated we are emoloyees.


 Use imprecise language in dealing with the main topic, expect blowback.



UberBeemer said:


> i am not the one butthurt. I am calling the surge game cherry picking, and gaming, because it is. That's a descriptive, and not a moral judgement.


 _Aaaaand_... he still doesn't get the difference between IC's and employees. It's called being an independent contractor, not "cherry picking". Each ride request is a contract offer. As an independent contractor I choose which contracts to accept and which to decline. Simple, see?

You won't find the term "cherry picker" in any formal writing or discussion or writing on labour law because its a non-concept, it doesn't exist. It would be an oxymoron. If you tried to use it with reference to the IC's right to accept or decline contract offers, people would look at you funny and wonder how the pre-law student got into their meeting and then how you were accepted into pre-law in the first place.

Because it's universally accepted as _a given_ by anyone with even the most basic understanding of the "independent contractor" model that one of it's main characteristics is the IC's ability and right to accept and decline contract offers.

It's just Uber and its henchemen who are trying to change the definition of "independent contractor" through the use of propoganda and phrases like "cherry picking'" and "gaming the sytem" to frame IC's right and ability to accept and decline contracts as "underhanded" and "deceptive". Seems they've even suceeded in getting some drivers and driver discsussion board moderators to adopt this bogus and factually wrong view.


----------



## UberBeemer

UpoorPeople said:


> Use imprecise language in dealing with the main topic, expect blowback.
> 
> _Aaaaand_... he still doesn't get the difference between IC's and employees. It's called being an independent contractor, not "cherry picking". Each ride request is a contract offer. As an independent contractor I choose which contracts to accept and which to decline. Simple, see?
> 
> You won't find the term "cherry picker" in any formal discussion or writing on labour law because its a non-concept, it doesn't exist. It would be an oxymoron.


You are so in love with your opinion, you have to try to make me wrong, dont you? Too bad.


----------



## UpoorPeople

The right and ability of "independent contractors" to accept and decline contract offers isn't my opinion, it's a fact set out clearly in the labour code of any jurisdiction you care to look at.

I'm not trying to make you wrong. You _are_ wrong. I'm trying to make you _see_ it.


----------



## UberBeemer

Thats just it. Your opinion is that i am wrong because i don't agree with your opinion, so you are trying to MAKE me see... as if my HAVING an opinion is an affront to you or your intelligence or something. 

An IC can choose jobs. I get that you don't like being seen as cherry picking. But choosing just the best jobs on the rideshare platforms is the definition of cherry picking . You're taking offense at a fact. Its kind of silly. 

A driver logs in as (lets say for the sake of example) uber X/pool. Pool ping comes, driver declines. X base, decline. X 1.3, decline. X 4.0, and drivers finger cant hit the accept any faster. This is cherry picking. Driver was offered 3 jobs, and said, no not enough. But the system was designed to share the work, so they're leaving "scraps" for other drivers and telling Ubers customers that they aren't worthy. That's cherry picking. 

So i guess we see it differently, which is fine. But accept that yours is not the only perspective. Don't resort to names, insults, and don't try to force the rest of the world to agree with you. Unless you're 8, and then throw in a nanny nanny boo boo or something.


----------



## hulksmash

UberBeemer said:


> I see so many members here who say with indignation, just like you do, that uber is screwing us, etc., but they are doing everything that they agreed to do when we signed on. And you can bet they read our posts, about how we leave passengers wait until we get that nice multiplier. So what do you expect them to see that as? Something to be rewarded, when it causes customers to grouse about how hard it is to get a ride at times?
> 
> No, they see it as a loophole, and they try to figure out how to close it. That's what the business world has become. A company hires workers (contractors, employees, it doesn't matter) to do their work and make them look good in the process. If they see workers drop the ball on one or the other, or worse, to turn the situation to their sdvsntage rather than the company's, they either rewrite the rules, or just get rid of you. Sometimes both.


Uber created a system where the only way to make a profit is to wait until enough other people need a ride to trigger a price increase. Only a sucker will spend time and effort deadmiling to a venue staging lot, then take a ride for peanuts when they can double or triple their income waiting 10 minutes.

Pax don't complain about high prices as much as they complain about wait times and cancellations. Most would be happy to pay a little more even without high demand just to get a ride quickly and not get cancelled on. The reason they wait is because no smart driver wants to drive for substandard rates, but they are too stubborn to understand that.

When I drive Lyft Lux I am online and available early, and am happy pick up right away. At the Rose Bowl a couple weeks ago a pax walked up to me for a ride because he couldn't get an UberX (surge hadn't started yet). Told him I would do it for Lux rates. I explained he couldn't get a ride because rates were too low for all the Time spent getting in the lot and waiting, deadmiles back, etc, type of car I drove, etc. He refused, but then a few minutes later came back and accepted the terms. I'm guessing no one wanted to take him for his asking price, and the other SUVs wanted more than me. He was happy to pay just to get a ride quickly and not wait


----------



## bobby747

they uber can be broken...but only by 90% of the drivers just stop driving for 1 week..uber will be a total mess..especially airports have 5 cars instead of 120......and if they put it back real surge ..still stay home for 1 week....this will force a policy change..uber dont need to steal this much to make profit...
IMHO IF THEY CANNOT MAKE IT WITH UPFRONT PRICING. they should shut down...thier fares are so high


----------



## JTTwentySeven

himynameis said:


> When it hits my market I'm done. An so will alot of drivers. Uber went to far this time!


I'll be right behind you on that.


----------



## UberBeemer

I am done with debating you two. So i will probably put you on ignore. No offense intended, but i just want you to know why i wont go around this mulberry bush with you anymore.


----------



## hulksmash

UberBeemer said:


> Driver was offered 3 jobs, and said, no not enough. But the system was designed to share the work, so they're leaving "scraps" for other drivers and telling Ubers customers that they aren't worthy. That's cherry picking.


Other drivers are free to pass on the scraps as well. It's up to Uber to make the platform reliable, not the drivers. Not every ride needs to be a unicorn but they should all net a reasonable return relative to the time and effort spent. Pool rides to the liquor store 2 blocks away cost drivers and/or Uber money subsidizing the pax. If they can't afford to pay a reasonable minimum, they can walk or take the bus. There should be no reason why you get a base ride request 15 minutes away with no surge. If the wait time is that long, it means there is limited supply, which should call for a price increase to secure that scarce resource. Uber causes their own problems by artificially suppressing what a driver should make.


----------



## tomatopaste

emdeplam said:


> Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


Do you have any idea when I'll be receiving notification of this significant surge policy change on my passenger app?


----------



## jazzapt

UberBeemer said:


> Thats just it. Your opinion is that i am wrong because i don't agree with your opinion, so you are trying to MAKE me see... as if my HAVING an opinion is an affront to you or your intelligence or something.
> 
> An IC can choose jobs. I get that you don't like being seen as cherry picking. But choosing just the best jobs on the rideshare platforms is the definition of cherry picking . You're taking offense at a fact. Its kind of silly.
> 
> A driver logs in as (lets say for the sake of example) uber X/pool. Pool ping comes, driver declines. X base, decline. X 1.3, decline. X 4.0, and drivers finger cant hit the accept any faster. This is cherry picking. Driver was offered 3 jobs, and said, no not enough. But the system was designed to share the work, so they're leaving "scraps" for other drivers and telling Ubers customers that they aren't worthy. That's cherry picking.
> 
> So i guess we see it differently, which is fine. But accept that yours is not the only perspective. Don't resort to names, insults, and don't try to force the rest of the world to agree with you. Unless you're 8, and then throw in a nanny nanny boo boo or something.


Dude, I am with you. I don't see the aversion to the term "Cherry Picking". I "Cherry Pick" my rides every shift I drive, and I am proud of it. I also know Uber hates it that I "Cherry Pick" and I could care less that it bothers them.

But I also knew a reckoning was coming some day. For example, for one month last August, in Boston Uber offered the greatest upgrade they ever came up with: Drop off Preferences. I live in the North Suburbs of Boston, and every shift I would set my Drop Off Preference to Greater Boston. This guaranteed I was going to start my shift off getting a ride into the city rather than dead-heading or using a DF which would never guarantee getting me all the way there.

As great as it was, every day I did it I knew there were riders that were getting left behind because they were not going all the way to Boston. I knew Uber would realize that and it wouldn't last. Low-and-behold, a month later they took it away.

As much as I don't want to, I know Uber and Lyft want me to take every ride they throw at me, and I fully expect for them to keep adjusting their tactics to try and force me to. When they do, I just have to ask myself if it is still worth it.


----------



## UpoorPeople

I see you have trouble with rational debate. If you deny the law of gravity and I point you're wrong, it's not an opinion. You're just wrong.

Similarly if you deny that it's a basic characteristic and right of "independent contracting" to accept and decline contracts, you're just factually wrong. No opinions needed.

I don't really give a crap about the words "cherry picking" either. Call it "pumpkin pulling" or whatever floats your boat. I don't care until the speaker starts to imply that it's _unexpected_, _unprecedented_, _underhanded_, _cheating, "not the way the 'system' is supposed to work", or otherwise deny that this is a completely normal aspect of "independent contracting" _etc. such as UberBeemer has done throughout this thread. It's _EXACTLY_ the way the "system" (which Uber doesn't define by the way) is supposed to work.

"Gaming the system" on the other hand, obviously implies all of these negative connotations.


----------



## UberBeemer

hulksmash said:


> Uber created a system where the only way to make a profit is to wait until enough other people need a ride to trigger a price increase. Only a sucker will spend time and effort deadmiling to a venue staging lot, then take a ride for peanuts when they can double or triple their income waiting 10 minutes.
> 
> Pax don't complain about high prices as much as they complain about wait times and cancellations. Most would be happy to pay a little more even without high demand just to get a ride quickly and not get cancelled on. The reason they wait is because no smart driver wants to drive for substandard rates, but they are too stubborn to understand that.
> 
> When I drive Lyft Lux I am online and available early, and am happy pick up right away. At the Rose Bowl a couple weeks ago a pax walked up to me for a ride because he couldn't get an UberX (surge hadn't started yet). Told him I would do it for Lux rates. I explained he couldn't get a ride because rates were too low for all the Time spent getting in the lot and waiting, deadmiles back, etc, type of car I drove, etc. He refused, but then a few minutes later came back and accepted the terms. I'm guessing no one wanted to take him for his asking price, and the other SUVs wanted more than me. He was happy to pay just to get a ride quickly and not wait


The feeling i have is that Uber sees drivers sitting on the sideline trying to drive rates up. Combined with riders complaining about wait times. They realize that despite terms of agreement that state they set pricing, that drivers have effectively been able to work an angle. Uber devises a way to get a handle on that, reduce the complaints, and take away the leverage drivers realized they could apply. And in the process they see that thanks to us and our surge game, riders are now accustomed to inflated rates at given times, and Uber isn't inclined to leave that on the table. No more tail wagging the dog, far more complicated surge qualifications, and probably just another recruitment drive to fill the void with drivers that never tasted a 5.1x on NYE.

Why Did we expect different?



hulksmash said:


> Other drivers are free to pass on the scraps as well. It's up to Uber to make the platform reliable, not the drivers. Not every ride needs to be a unicorn but they should all net a reasonable return relative to the time and effort spent. Pool rides to the liquor store 2 blocks away cost drivers and/or Uber money subsidizing the pax. If they can't afford to pay a reasonable minimum, they can walk or take the bus. There should be no reason why you get a base ride request 15 minutes away with no surge. If the wait time is that long, it means there is limited supply, which should call for a price increase to secure that scarce resource. Uber causes their own problems by artificially suppressing what a driver should make.


That sounds like wishful thinking. I keep saying, we will only ever earn what they allow us to, and, we all signed the same agreement that gives them permission to change parameters.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> The feeling i have is that Uber sees drivers sitting on the sideline trying to drive rates up. Combined with riders complaining about wait times. They realize that despite terms of agreement that state they set pricing, that drivers have effectively been able to work an angle. Uber devises a way to get a handle on that, reduce the complaints, and take away the leverage drivers realized they could apply. And in the process they see that thanks to us and our surge game, riders are now accustomed to inflated rates at given times, and Uber isn't inclined to leave that on the table. No more tail wagging the dog, far more complicated surge qualifications, and probably just another recruitment drive to fill the void with drivers that never tasted a 5.1x on NYE.
> 
> Why Did we expect different?
> 
> That sounds like wishful thinking. I keep saying, we will only ever earn what they allow us to, and, we all signed the same agreement that gives them permission to change parameters.


Uber's entire business model is fraudulent. Why are drivers "working an angle" when they avoid unprofitable rides? This is Uber's business model, not the drivers'. You seem to be suggesting it the responsibility of the drivers to fit a square peg in a round hole. Uber doesn't give a rip about drivers so why should drivers give a rip about Uber?


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> Uber's entire business model is fraudulent. Why are drivers "working an angle" when they avoid unprofitable rides? This is Uber's business model, not the drivers'. You seem to be suggesting it the responsibility of the drivers to fit a square peg in a round hole. Uber doesn't give a rip about drivers so why should drivers give a rip about Uber?


Seems like if it were a giant fraud, Trump would be trying to get his name on it by now, and calling it the best company ever.

Seriously though, give a rip, or don't. It isn't anything i suggested. Just pointing out there's a cause and effect relationship between cherry picking and their new surge model.


----------



## Failed Login

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Agree. Do you want every employee in Wal-Mart telling you how much less they make than the employee at Target? Or how Wal-Mart is screwing them? No. You simply want to buy toilet paper, shampoo and body wash.


No, but I do want to hear my bartender (who is very hot for this example...) to tell me that her boss has started taking 66% of her tips on her sole shift each week on Saturday nights. She's worked there for 5-6 years and always kept her tips from the bar patrons but the boss decided he was going to start taking $2 of every $3 the patrons leave for her. Just playing the devil's advocate here...

You guys are finally getting it. I've been posting about this for a couple months, since I found this site. We've been enduring the poking and prodding of this "experiment" as they call it, for 8 months now. They continue to charge the rider the multiplier (so how is that having any effect on whether riders can afford high multiplier rides, as one commenter stated?), and pay us the small fixed amount. They have very cleverly limited their exposure to losing money on a ride, while greatly increasing their exposure and opportunity to increasing revenues on rides. I must say, they have pulled it off very nicely for themselves. You'll have a random rider here or there where Uber made less than they normally would on a surge ride, but the difference is very negligible. Buy you'll have nightly examples of Uber making tremendously more than they would have using the past surge driver pay method. And the dollar amounts on these are significant. I've had single trips where I've lost $40+ using this system vs getting paid by the multiplier. When this started in October, I got burned bad on several rides before I figured out a few things. The first night when I made $16 on a trip where the rider paid $62, I wanted to choke out my dog. I've posted many times on different threads here about this topic. I call Uber every single Saturday night/Sunday morning about 3am when I finish the one shift I drive, I get to a supervisor, and let them have it about this program. Had a survey call one evening and talked to the lady from their HQ for nearly 1.5 hours about it, providing specific examples and facts about how I was getting screwed. She finally said she had to go for the night, after telling me at the beginning she had plenty of time to talk about my responses and concerns.

Boils down to, they needed more profits in their drive to go public next year. Hard to raise rates on passengers any higher and keep volumes up, so the other available tool is to reduce driver pay. They found a clever way to do this and have tried to sell it to us as be "equally rewarded for long and short surge trips". Gets them more profit per ride. I've tried in vain to get them to provide me analysis on my profitability score/rating from prior to October 2017, to the last 8 months. Dead end request. I can provide it to them though, and they'd be very fat and happy to see it, if they don't already review that metric...



MothMan said:


> Screenshots of the Charlotte rides that show PAX paying a ton of $ but the driver getting little were shared a lot. OTOH, screenshots of short surge rides in Charlotte that showed the driver being paid more than the PAX paid did not get much publicity.


You're correct, that's because very seldom do I get a ride where I receive more than the rider paid. I mean like 1 in 40-50 surge rides. Uber limits exposure to this by keeping the surge amounts minimal. You see mostly $1, $1.50, up to $3.50. Those are by far the most common surge amounts unless the map starts glowing red. Hell, a $5 surge is coveted here. But the rides where Uber loses money are not common. And just watch your trips, the rides where you lose vs the old method, compared to the amount Uber loses, is heavily tilted in their favor. As I've said before, they limit their exposure to losses and limit our exposure to making big surge fares.


----------



## jazzapt

UberBeemer said:


> Seems like if it were a giant fraud, Trump would be trying to get his name on it by now, and calling it the best company ever.
> 
> Seriously though, give a rip, or don't. It isn't anything i suggested. Just pointing out there's a cause and effect relationship between cherry picking and their new surge model.


Here is what I think UberBeemer is trying to say and correct me if I wrong (I often am, as my wife always tell me). Uber (and Lyft) want every driver to take every ride possible given to them, and then some. Uber had it great back in the days when they could punish us for a low acceptance rate. We took most rides because of fear of being deactivated (we also got paid better, but that's another story).

Once Uber lost that ability, coupled with the rate decreases, drivers learned the way to really make money doing this was to work the surge. It's great for those of us who know how to work it, but Uber hates it.

In Uber's mind, we are not using the platform the way they want us to. And because they own and control the platform, they get the final say on what Terms and Conditions we have to agree to in order to use it (Independent Contractor status be damned). Therefore if we are using the platform in a way that they don't approve of, they will do anything in their power to rectify that.

So I think UberBeemer is not saying that working the surge is inherently wrong, but that Uber thinks it is. So changes like this is their response.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> The feeling i have is that Uber sees drivers sitting on the sideline trying to drive rates up. Combined with riders complaining about wait times. They realize that despite terms of agreement that state they set pricing, that drivers have effectively been able to work an angle. Uber devises a way to get a handle on that, reduce the complaints, and take away the leverage drivers realized they could apply. And in the process they see that thanks to us and our surge game, riders are now accustomed to inflated rates at given times, and Uber isn't inclined to leave that on the table. No more tail wagging the dog, far more complicated surge qualifications, and probably just another recruitment drive to fill the void with drivers that never tasted a 5.1x on NYE.
> 
> Why Did we expect different?


What a load of garbage.

Why is Uber tracking drivers when they're offline?

Uber's entire business model is an angle. Why would anyone choose to sit on their butt making zero if it were worthwhile to take the ride? They wouldn't. Uber is the one that abuses surge. They gouge business pax with ridiculous surges in order to offer criminally low fares to hipsters that shouldn't be in the system in the first place

Uber isn't inclined to leave that money on the table? It's not their money. I can't wait for the class action lawsuit from pax being charged for a service Uber never provided.


----------



## Failed Login

Ginbo said:


> Guys,
> My only question is, where does it say that Uber is going to roll out this policy to the whole nation?


Doubt is says it in writing anywhere, but the girl from HQ that I spoke with about the "experiment" in early March told me the plan was to have it rolled out nationwide in the August to September timeframe. She worked in product development.



Cincy UberX said:


> I have been driving every Saturday for the past 3 months and never averaged below 450. Yesterday I worked 12 hours and barely hit 250.
> This new surge system is probably the deal breaker to me driving for Uber. They throw 11$ Extra on a fare that's 20 miles long and they pocket the rest of the 3.3x surge money. My earnings for this type of surge went from 88$ To 28$.


It sucks, I can vouch for these rides. I have a question for the drivers in areas outside of Charlotte and the other new 5 test subjects... When was the last time you had 2-3 rides in a late night Saturday shift where your surge amount was $1? Ok, lets double it to $2? Have a lot of those during prime time? We do.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> The feeling i have is that Uber sees drivers sitting on the sideline trying to drive rates up. Combined with riders complaining about wait times. They realize that despite terms of agreement that state they set pricing, that drivers have effectively been able to work an angle. Uber devises a way to get a handle on that, reduce the complaints, and take away the leverage drivers realized they could apply. And in the process they see that thanks to us and our surge game, riders are now accustomed to inflated rates at given times, and Uber isn't inclined to leave that on the table. No more tail wagging the dog, far more complicated surge qualifications, and probably just another recruitment drive to fill the void with drivers that never tasted a 5.1x on NYE.
> 
> Why Did we expect different?
> 
> That sounds like wishful thinking. I keep saying, we will only ever earn what they allow us to, and, we all signed the same agreement that gives them permission to change parameters.


Another flawed analysis. Building in a way for drivers to increase their earnings isn't _optional_ for Uber. They _have_ to. IC's having some control over their rates is another essential aspect of the "independent contractor" model, again as set out in every labour codes that allow for IC's. Neither Uber nor you gets to re-define the legal meaning of "independent contractor" any more than you or Uber would get to re-define the legal meaning of "employee".


----------



## Fisfis

UberBeemer said:


> Thats just it. Your opinion is that i am wrong because i don't agree with your opinion, so you are trying to MAKE me see... as if my HAVING an opinion is an affront to you or your intelligence or something.
> 
> An IC can choose jobs. I get that you don't like being seen as cherry picking. But choosing just the best jobs on the rideshare platforms is the definition of cherry picking . You're taking offense at a fact. Its kind of silly.
> 
> A driver logs in as (lets say for the sake of example) uber X/pool. Pool ping comes, driver declines. X base, decline. X 1.3, decline. X 4.0, and drivers finger cant hit the accept any faster. This is cherry picking. Driver was offered 3 jobs, and said, no not enough. But the system was designed to share the work, so they're leaving "scraps" for other drivers and telling Ubers customers that they aren't worthy. That's cherry picking.
> 
> So i guess we see it differently, which is fine. But accept that yours is not the only perspective. Don't resort to names, insults, and don't try to force the rest of the world to agree with you. Unless you're 8, and then throw in a nanny nanny boo boo or something.


You're not looking at the facts objectively. Nobody told Uber to farm out some rides at base, some rides at 1.3 and some at 4.

They're the ones who created this problem and they can fix it today if they wanted to. If every ride had the same price, we wouldn't have this problem to argue would we?

Then why Uber created this shit and did nothing other than complaining about the driver for surge gaming?

In reality, Uber is the party playing games all along. Not the driver. If you create that opportunity on that platform, then you don't have the right to blame someone for using it.

Drivers don't care about surge at all. They just want to make a living. They made investments based on the pay per mile rate and you keep playing with it, then blaming the driver for trying to get that rate???

If this is really bad for customer retention and loyalty, why they still continue with this parade? All the have to do is raise the rates to an acceptable level and be done with the surge. People would drive for $1.50 on base all day long.

But no. Uber loves that ridiculous arbitrage money and prefer to blame it on the driver while still looking innocent to the pax!

Because they make more that way. If the rates were acceptable rate, Uber would have no room to grab more to increase revenue. They'd be stuck with 25%. That's the only real reason why surge still exists today. Wake up.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> Just pointing out there's a cause and effect relationship between cherry picking and their new surge model.


And we're just pointing out that you have no understanding of the "independent contractor" designation and how Uber is constrained by it, and therefore _doesn't_ call all the shots.

The fact is Uber _hasn't_ been able to stop drivers who choose to increase their pay rate. And it's highly unlikely it _will ever_ be able to do this and a) avoid the biggest legal challenges it has yet faced and b) remain viable.

Uber is pushing to have all of the benefits of being an employer, such as dictating terms and pay rate, but none of the responsibilities. So has every company that has attempted to use "independent contractors" in the history of the term's existence. Congratulations on your unique and briliant idea. Now get in line. This situation isn't unique or special in the way UberBeemer seems to think it is. It's the same boring and predictable move every dumb vampire corporation has tried to make with "independent contractors". Next...


----------



## Mapnik

Fisfis said:


> You're not looking at the facts objectively. Nobody told Uber to farm out some rides at base, some rides at 1.3 and some at 4.
> 
> They're the ones who created this problem and they can fix it today if they wanted to. If every ride had the same price, we wouldn't have this problem to argue would we?
> 
> Then why Uber created this shit and did nothing other than complaining about the driver for surge gaming?
> 
> In reality, Uber is the party playing games all along. Not the driver. If you create that opportunity on that platform, then you don't have the right to blame someone for using it.
> 
> Drivers don't care about surge at all. They just want to make a living. They made investments based on the pay per mile rate and you keep playing with it, then blaming the driver for trying to get that rate???
> 
> If this is really bad for customer retention and loyalty, why they still continue with this parade? All the have to do is raise the rates to an acceptable level and be done with the surge. People would drive for $1.50 on base all day long.
> 
> But no. Uber loves that ridiculous arbitrage money and prefer to blame it on the driver while still looking innocent to the pax!
> 
> Because they make more that way. If the rates were acceptable rate, Uber would have no room to grab more to increase revenue. They'd be stuck with 25%. That's the only real reason why surge still exists today. Wake up.


Couple points:

1. Uber doesn't make money.

2. "If every ride had the same price, we wouldn't have this problem to argue would we?":

If every ride had a _sustainable_ price, there would be far more drivers than available rides. That's why in the taxi industry there are two aspects to the system. On one hand you have one price that is not gouging the customer nor bankrupting the driver. On the other hand you have a medallion system that limits the number of cars on the road.

Uber wants to have unlimited cars - that's kind of the basis for most modern e-commerce businesses. But if they paid a sustainable rate, there would be *too many* cars, and that wouldn't be sustainable either because drivers would quit. So you cut the base rate down to a sub-starvation level, and then install these games to tweak the supply up as needed.

I don't think Travis or anyone else ever really understood the kind of problem they were getting into when they thought this system up. The taxi business worked and they figured out the issues decades ago. The only thing missing was the IT.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Good points. I agree.

I do think it might have worked smoothly with very identifiable limits on the number of drivers and higher rates. Given the convenience aspect, I'm guessing they could have taken the same market share from the taxi industry by undercutting it by just a 1/3. But they completely destroyed that possibility by setting pax expectations on prices so low that they can't go back. Uber's only option now is to dick around to try to keep existing drivers confused and replace the leavers with newbers.

But this may not be enough at this point. I think they may have hung themselves with the rope of their own clever making.


----------



## Retired Senior

I DID NOT READ EACH AND EVERY POST UP TO THIS POINT!~
But I did have something unusual happen to me today.
I was sitting on Bridgeport Ave, in Shelton Ct, where there are at least 6 major hotels in a 2 mile radius, waiting for one of the hotel customers to call for a ride to Bradley International Airport. Between 6AM and 6:30 AM I got several pings where the pick up point varied between 10 - 16 minutes away from where I was, in hotel heaven. After I refused the 3rd or 4th one I got a message that strongly suggested that if I failed to accept the next one, I would be taken offline for awhile. I caved in and accepted the next one. The pick up distance was 14 minutes away, to a customer I had driven before, and he was going to the Stratford train station. I made $5.46 after driving 14 minutes to get him and then the actual ride to his destination. This is simply wrong.... we would all be running out of gas if this crap prevails!


----------



## Fisfis

Mapnik said:


> Couple points:
> 
> 1. Uber doesn't make money.
> 
> 2. "If every ride had the same price, we wouldn't have this problem to argue would we?":
> 
> If every ride had a _sustainable_ price, there would be far more drivers than available rides. That's why in the taxi industry there are two aspects to the system. On one hand you have one price that is not gouging the customer nor bankrupting the driver. On the other hand you have a medallion system that limits the number of cars on the road.
> 
> Uber wants to have unlimited cars - that's kind of the basis for most modern e-commerce businesses. But if they paid a sustainable rate, there would be *too many* cars, and that wouldn't be sustainable either because drivers would quit. So you cut the base rate down to a sub-starvation level, and then install these games to tweak the supply up as needed.
> 
> I don't think Travis or anyone else ever really understood the kind of problem they were getting into when they thought this system up. The taxi business worked and they figured out the issues decades ago. The only thing missing was the IT.


1) I didn't say "profit" I said Uber makes more that way. Uber does make money. They just don't turn a profit. Don't mix up the two.

2) How's that the driver's problem? Driver's didn't create the market nor they control it. They are willing contractors to fulfill the requested jobs.

If the market is volatile and you need surge to keep in check, then why are you blaming the driver for an instrument you use for them to come out and drive!

Also why are you taking up to 82% off the surge fare ripping the driver off on top of that? Stop playing with driver's money and the pax will get a ride on time and will be at the destination on time.

Uber charges the pax claiming it's busy, telling the driver it's surging enticing them to come out then playing games trying to keep most of the fare doing whatever they can.

Don't forget drivers were wearing suits, opening doors in fancy cars, offering all amenities in the beginning. You get what you pay for!

Play games with driver's money, keep skimming as much as you can finding new methods and then blame the driver on gaming. What an audacity!


----------



## NoPooPool

UberBeemer said:


> Seems like if it were a giant fraud, Trump would be trying to get his name on it by now, and calling it the best company ever.
> 
> Seriously though, give a rip, or don't. It isn't anything i suggested. Just pointing out there's a cause and effect relationship between cherry picking and their new surge model.


OMG, so now you pull Donald Trump out of your derrière!


----------



## Fisfis

Another Uber Driver said:


> The first two lines get a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> As you hacked, you know that cab rates are what they are for a reason. What is more, you had to pay Neal's ridiculous rents and other charges. Everything there always was done at the maximum inconvenience of the driver. When the alternative showed up (Uber), Neal (and Lee) paid for his [rectal *aperturetude*] when they lost more than a few drivers. Of course, after the last few rounds of pay cuts, some of them did go crawling back to Neal (and Lee), but, some stayed. We DO have an advantage over the average TNC driver.
> 
> I always suspected that there were such things as someone less principled than either Neal or Lee. Now, I have to deal with someone like that.
> 
> As for the last line; s far, both F_*ub*_*a*_*r*_ and Gr_*yft*_ have managed to onboard them faster than they lose them. That might be coming to an end, as, in my last few visits to the Green Light Centre in this market, I have noticed far fewer drivers' being onboarded than even six months back. Still, though, it seems that they are doing somewhat better than keeping pace. One way that they have been doing this is lowering standards for vehicles. At some point, they may have to lower standards for drivers. The last is likely why they do not want the Law Enforcement background checks. If the TNCs start to accept the worse drivers, the insurance carrier may have something to say about it. The TNCs will simply pay the higher premiums by cutting the drivers' pay, yet again, while charging the customers the same, or, even more.
> 
> Churchill once made a statement to the effect that complained about his side having to act the "gentleman, with all of its disadvantages" while the other side acted "like the scoundrel, with all of its advantages". As long as F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* continue in the scoundrelous conduct, I will continue with mine. When the TNCs want to play fairly, I will.
> 
> The cab business did not "sit idly by" when Uber first appeared. Unfortunately for the cab business, the principals at Uber made "arrangements", so thyr complaints were rebuffed. A ruling by a judge in Indiana, through which even someone who received a "C" in Eighth Grade Civics could see, is an example of the proverbial fix's being put.


You're right on the money about lowering standards. Uber has to expand their pool of available candidates to expand.

In Los Angeles, Select car requirements was 2012 or newer model vehicles. Couple days ago I checked and saw now it's 2009.

This was the same with Uberx. It was 10 year model requirement, now they're down to 2001. Soon enough, I expect them to just say "in running condition."

Also, they recently started signing up ex convicts. They act like they are all about second chances, but in reality they are approaching the bottom of the available and desired driver pool.

Imagine what the service quality will be two more years from now when they keep lowering the standards. I'm guessing one riding incident will be on the news every day, if not more.


----------



## f1zero

UberBeemer said:


> Seems like if it were a giant fraud, Trump would be trying to get his name on it by now, and calling it the best company ever.
> 
> Seriously though, give a rip, or don't. It isn't anything i suggested. Just pointing out there's a cause and effect relationship between cherry picking and their new surge model.


And if Uber rolls out the new surge model nationwide, then drivers just won't do long rides for just a few dollars extra. They'll just do short rides for $ dollars extra. Also wait times will increase even more because drivers aren't going to accept non-surged pings when they're in a surged area and somehow don't fulfill all of those stupid requirements to qualify for surge.

Also, you're a Select driver in the suburbs, so you don't get much experience with your so-called cherry picking


----------



## RockinEZ

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


I believe everyone knows that Uber will eliminate surges as soon as they have enough drivers online. 
We are not surprised, PAX hate surges. 
Uber wants happy PAX. 
As long as there is a line of new drivers all day long at the Uber office, the chance of keeping surges is fading fast.


----------



## Cynergie

JayAre said:


> Yes is the short answer


...No. It's called how Uber screwed the world aka Uber's carbon footprint. Created by Uber driver saturation in its markets. Which leads to 2hr+ long AM/PM commutes in the most populated cities. Which lead to increased CFCs & other undesirable vehicle emissions. Which will ultimately lead to a doomsday Green House gas effect, polar cap melt, sea rise turning the earth into Waterworld, followed by dreaded Climate Change.

Or so the EPA environmental Nazis would have you believe. And especially this nutjob six kook

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gore-runs-global-warming-racket/

Given all the vacant land we have in this country, I'm perplexed as to why this crackpot hasn't been awarded his own Charm School cultist camp out in the Styx yet. Where he and his followers can happily stay high on moon sugar coated, gillyweed infused, crack dusted Mary Jane. And some freedom moonshine crazytown kool aid to boot.



UpoorPeople said:


> It's an Uberboros.
> 
> View attachment 232998


You Sir, are quite the unsavory rogue and a knave. Cannibalism and implied fellatio are taboo subjects on these forums. Especially if it's the self imposed kind, which Uber drivers are so highly predisposed towards doing.


----------



## UberBeemer

Mapnik said:


> Couple points:
> 
> 1. Uber doesn't make money.
> 
> 2. "If every ride had the same price, we wouldn't have this problem to argue would we?":
> 
> If every ride had a _sustainable_ price, there would be far more drivers than available rides. That's why in the taxi industry there are two aspects to the system. On one hand you have one price that is not gouging the customer nor bankrupting the driver. On the other hand you have a medallion system that limits the number of cars on the road.
> 
> Uber wants to have unlimited cars - that's kind of the basis for most modern e-commerce businesses. But if they paid a sustainable rate, there would be *too many* cars, and that wouldn't be sustainable either because drivers would quit. So you cut the base rate down to a sub-starvation level, and then install these games to tweak the supply up as needed.
> 
> I don't think Travis or anyone else ever really understood the kind of problem they were getting into when they thought this system up. The taxi business worked and they figured out the issues decades ago. The only thing missing was the IT.


Well said. I also do think they could just raise rates keep the split reasonable, and that way all customers enjoy the price benefit, while drivers can afford to maintain and maybe update cars more often.

Then I realize that I tend to forget somethi g important when I get riled up about pay per mile or minute, and whether there's a multiplier. This isn't my business, it belongs to them. And technically, so do the customers. I (we) am (are) contract workers. Until I get livery plates, commercial insurance, and an appropriate license so I can book off app, I serve them, and that comes with all that clutter in the dumb partner agreement. That means, to me, that every day, I have to evaluate on the fly where and when to be. If I can manage that, they can fiddle with the surge and it should not be a big problem. 


NoPooPool said:


> OMG, so now you pull Donald Trump out of your derrière!





NoPooPool said:


> OMG, so now you pull Donald Trump out of your derrière!


Sorry if that's your boy, but I enjoy a good trump joke. He is an easy mark. Can't wait to hear his comment on Rosanne's cancellation. Should be fun.


----------



## Cynergie

excel2345 said:


> But can uber/lyft wait a generation for acceptance of sdc's like your ancestors did for their new products?


I see you didn't get the memos?
Memo #1
https://www.wired.com/story/uber-unveils-flying-taxi/

Memo #2
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/05/08/uber-flying-taxis-get-government-boost/590177002/

Memo #3
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...taxis-and-delivery-drones-to-really-take-off/

Commercial airspace used to be the safest place to be. Then Uber happened.

#TheSkyIsFallingSoonAtAnUberNearYou


----------



## UberBeemer

Cynergie said:


> Given all the vacant land we have in this country, I'm perplexed as to why this crackpot hasn't been awarded his own Charm School cultist camp out in the Styx yet. Where he and his followers can happily stay high on moon sugar coated, gillyweed infused, crack dusted Mary Jane


Which agency awards those? I might want one of my own...


----------



## Joshua J

Glad I quit uber, invested in properties and airbnbs now


----------



## UpoorPeople

NoPooPool said:


> OMG, so now you pull Donald Trump out of your derrière!


Now if someone could just pull Trump out of Trump's derriere...


----------



## UberBeemer

Joshua J said:


> Glad I quit uber, invested in properties and airbnbs now


Nice. Hope it's working. I hope you don't have a swarm of Uber's lurking by your abnb waiting for prices to fall...


----------



## Cynergie

UberBeemer said:


> Which agency awards those? I might want one of my own...


If I knew, I'd have cited it earlier mate. You'd best seek the advice of Marshall Applewhite or Jim Jones. They're subject matter experts in this field 
Best shot at contacting the former is through the vlogger who uploaded this video on their Youtube channel:


----------



## tomatopaste

UpoorPeople said:


> And we're just pointing out that you have no understanding of the "independent contractor" designation and how Uber is constrained by it, and therefore _doesn't_ call all the shots.
> 
> The fact is Uber _hasn't_ been able to stop drivers who choose to increase their pay rate. And it's highly unlikely it _will ever_ be able to do this and a) avoid the biggest legal challenges it has yet faced and b) remain viable.
> 
> Uber is pushing to have all of the benefits of being an employer, such as dictating terms and pay rate, but none of the responsibilities. So has every company that has attempted to use "independent contractors" in the history of the term's existence. Congratulations on your unique and briliant idea. Now get in line. This situation isn't unique or special in the way UberBeemer seems to think it is. It's the same boring and predictable move every dumb vampire corporation has tried to make with "independent contractors". Next...


This new surge policy is fraud pure and simple. Pax are paying a premium thinking Uber is using the premium to incentivize drivers to come online. It's like a large company paying to have products shipped by air and then Fedex suddenly decides to start shipping them ground and pockets the difference but doesn't tell the customer.

Sure the company might not find out for a few months, but when they do, all hell breaks loose. For Uber to even think about doing this means they're beyond desperate.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> ^^^^^^^is^^obvious^^^^^^^^and^^the^^opposite^^is^^also^^true^^^^^^so^^is^^that^^your^^only^^point?^^


HUH?


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> This new surge policy is fraud pure and simple. Pax are paying a premium thinking Uber is using the premium to incentivize drivers to come online. It's like a large company paying to have products shipped by air and then Fedex suddenly decides to start shipping them ground and pockets the difference but doesn't tell the customer.
> 
> Sure the company might not find out for a few months, but when they do, all hell breaks loose. For Uber to even think about doing this means they're beyond desperate.


I don't think it fits the definition of fraud, nor does the example really fit the situation. Riders are not being defrauded, they are getting a ride, and paying the rate offered them. Fraud, might be ordering a black car and having a Prius roll up instead. But the disbursement of funds was never any of their business.



Cynergie said:


> Unfortunately, this would be mildly entertaining, assuming such contortion was real. Many folks are too preoccupied with the increasingly daunting chasm of logic they must overcome in society these days. Just so they can decipher and/or follow the guidance portrayed by these role models.......
> 
> View attachment 233087
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


This meme is inappropriate. You're dissing ethnicity, sexual and gender identity.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> I don't think it fits the definition of fraud, nor does the example really fit the situation. Riders are not being defrauded, they are getting a ride, and paying the rate offered them. Fraud, might be ordering a black car and having a Prius roll up instead. But the disbursement of funds was never any of their business.


Then why is Uber charging them 4x's surge? For what purpose?


----------



## UberBeemer

Same reason they ever did. Demand is high, supply is low.

You know, like, OPEC cuts production, oil prices go up, and gas prices rise the next day, even though the gas already in the stations tanks was paid for at a lower cost.

It sucks, but it is not fraud.


----------



## nobody420

Here's one for uber to suck!
I'm done with your bull shit been driving for you since 2015 but now it's screw you.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


I said this over a year ago. Uber will not quit cutting the drivers pay and taking more of the pax money until the split is basically 80/20. Uber getting 80% of the fare. Basically uber wants to pay its drivers 20% of the fare it collects from riders. This is the target numbers for uber to be able to go public and be profitable. Will there be any drivers working for 20% of the total fare? History has proven: ABSOLUTELY!!



UberBeemer said:


> Same reason they ever did. Demand is high, supply is low.
> 
> You know, like, OPEC cuts production, oil prices go up, and gas prices rise the next day, even though the gas already in the stations tanks was paid for at a lower cost.
> 
> It sucks, but it is not fraud.


Yep supply and demand economics. We are a capitalist nation/planet


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> Same reason they ever did. Demand is high, supply is low.
> 
> You know, like, OPEC cuts production, oil prices go up, and gas prices rise the next day, even though the gas already in the stations tanks was paid for at a lower cost.
> 
> It sucks, but it is not fraud.


So Uber can just charge whatever they want whenever they want. It doesn't have to be tied to incentivizing drivers to go online to meet demand? Can I get that in writing?


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> So Uber can just charge whatever they want whenever they want. It doesn't have to be tied to incentivizing drivers to go online to meet demand? Can I get that in writing?


Sure, just read the partner agreement.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> Sure, just read the partner agreement.


I'm not talking about Uber's relationship with drivers, I'm talking about Uber's relationship with regulators.


----------



## UberBeemer

What regulators?


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> What regulators?


California CPUC

http://www.taxiintelligence.com/california-operators-helped-create-backdrop-for-big-uber-decision/


----------



## UpoorPeople

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> Will there be any drivers working for 20% of the total fare? History has proven: ABSOLUTELY!! ...Yep supply and demand economics. We are a capitalist nation/planet


A lot of folks with crystal balls around here... but I never put much stock in fortune telling, myself.

It's this "inevitability" some people express, like it's written in the sky that _"it shall be thus."_ You do realize that businesses fail right? Like 70% of them after 10 years? And Uber is a PRIME CANDIDATE for failure. Tens of billions in losses year after year for 9 years and people talk as if it's a proven business model. _*Uber is not a proven business model.*_

Will Uber be able to expand, or even maintain, supply while cutting driver earnings down to half of minimum wage? There are innumerable ifs, hurdles and possible pitfalls it has to make it through before anyone can answer "yeah, definitely". Let's just watch and see shall we?

One thing that _is_ certain is that the makeup of the drivers and cars in such a scenario would be so radically altered that 2018's pax wouldn't even recognize them as "Ubers". It would look more like Mad Max. Will they be happy? Anyone who thinks they KNOW how the market will react to meth-head drivers pulling up in 2001 puke-scented Prius's with destroyed suspension should call up Warren Buffet and offer him some tips.


----------



## NoPooPool

UberBeemer said:


> Well said. I also do think they could just raise rates keep the split reasonable, and that way all customers enjoy the price benefit, while drivers can afford to maintain and maybe update cars more often.
> 
> Then I realize that I tend to forget somethi g important when I get riled up about pay per mile or minute, and whether there's a multiplier. This isn't my business, it belongs to them. And technically, so do the customers. I (we) am (are) contract workers. Until I get livery plates, commercial insurance, and an appropriate license so I can book off app, I serve them, and that comes with all that clutter in the dumb partner agreement. That means, to me, that every day, I have to evaluate on the fly where and when to be. If I can manage that, they can fiddle with the surge and it should not be a big problem.
> 
> Sorry if that's your boy, but I enjoy a good trump joke. He is an easy mark. Can't wait to hear his comment on Rosanne's cancellation. Should be fun.


No need to be sorry, and he is not my BOY. They are all crooks, and have been sucking on the public teat for all of their adult lives.


----------



## Cynergie

Beat me to it. Even the Shark Tank Aussies have wised up to the reverse Ponzi scheme when pitched Uber's B$ by cockroach copy cats like La Mule...

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/shark-tank-judges-circle-in-on-ridesharing-safety-fears/

It was only 6 years into the Uber apocalypse and this rideshare cockroach was still pitching this:



> Eleven UberX drivers have been charged with operating a commercial passenger vehicle without a licence. But Du Rieu says La Mule's drivers don't require taxi licences simply because they are a marketplace for people to connect and share the costs of rides, rather than specifically setting out to earn money for giving people lifts.


which was very telling since none of the Sharks bought into his B$. That was in 2015 before Uber started cannibalizing its driver base. Three years later, no sane Wall Street investor will jump in (unless they're they're trying to gain a foothold in a foreign market as with Softbank buying equity in Uber, they're simply clueless, desperate or all the above).


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> California CPUC
> 
> http://www.taxiintelligence.com/california-operators-helped-create-backdrop-for-big-uber-decision/





tomatopaste said:


> California CPUC
> 
> http://www.taxiintelligence.com/california-operators-helped-create-backdrop-for-big-uber-decision/


Not to mention the California Supreme Court decision.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-independent-contract-20180430-story.html

Maybe it's just me but it almost seems like bureaucrats in California (not to mention the Gov of Arizona and the mayor of Philly) have had about enough of Uber's sheet. I kinda get the feeling Uber's new "we can charge whatever we want whenever we want" policy ain't gonna fly too well in California.


----------



## jazzapt

tomatopaste said:


> Not to mention the California Supreme Court decision.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-independent-contract-20180430-story.html
> 
> Maybe it's just me but it almost seems like bureaucrats in California (not to mention the Gov of Arizona and the mayor of Philly) have had about enough of Uber's sheet. I kinda get the feeling Uber's new "we can charge whatever we want whenever we want" policy ain't gonna fly too well in California.


I don't think it will fly in MA either. I think there is a very specific reason they aren't testing this here. MA likes to regulate everything (including how much surge Uber can charge during a snow storm).

Charging pax 4x the price, but not passing that on to drivers? MA regulators will have a field day with that. My guess is they won't roll it out here until they are sure they've cleared regulatory hurdles most everywhere else.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Someone needs to change title of the thread. It's the main thing we are talking about.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> So Uber can just charge whatever they want whenever they want.


Yes. There are few places in the New Knightidd Steaks Uh-Murrica that regulate F*ub*a*r*'s rates. Some here or there might put caps on the surges, but most do not do even that. There are places that are _*thinking*_ about it, but none have done anything about it. New York and California do have some regulations on Uber, but, Uber suffers that because it is not about to give up those markets. California alone has a larger economy than more than a few nations (and it _*ain't just none o' The Donald's*_ [solid waste opening] countries, either). Uber is not going to give up that one.



tomatopaste said:


> I'm talking about Uber's relationship with regulators.


In most places in this country, Uber has made "arrangements" either with the regulators or those above the regulators. In the Capital of Your Nation, the arrangements were so thoroughly made that Uber's lawyers and lobbyists even wrote the legislation that "regulates" the TNCs. The regulators here really do not like F*ub*a*r* or Gr*yft*, but the former has long since gone over the regulators' proverbial heads, here.



UberBeemer said:


> What regulators?


The ones with whom the TNCs have made "arrangements", I guess, except that those regulators are not going to do anything.



tomatopaste said:


> Maybe it's just me but it almost seems like bureaucrats in California (not to mention the Gov of Arizona and the mayor of Philly) have had about enough of Uber's sheet. I kinda get the feeling Uber's new "we can charge whatever we want whenever we want" policy ain't gonna fly too well in California.


It might not fly in California, as the Demokratik People's Republik of the Lephte Koast is one of the few places that actually makes an attempt to regulate the TNCs. The TNCs are going to argue that what they charge the customer has not changed, thus the regulators have no concern with that. The TNCs will insist that the relationship between them and their drivers is not a matter of concern to the state.



jazzapt said:


> I don't think it will fly in MA either. MA likes to regulate everything (including how much surge Uber can charge during a snow storm).
> 
> Charging pax 4x the price, but not passing that on to drivers? MA regulators will have a field day with that.
> 
> My guess is they won't roll it out here until they are sure they've cleared regulatory hurdles most everywhere else *made "arrangements" with the people with whom it is necessary to make those "arrangements".*.


I was not aware that TAXachusetts regulated the surge rates. What is the cap, there and when does it apply? (and yes, I can call it TAXachusetts; it is my home. I might live in the Capital of Your Nation, but I am from Massachusetts; *GO **RED SOX**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *--currently, they are beating Toronto and the Yankees are losing to Houston--might be three games out of first before the night is over!!!--and yes, I will be at Nationals park all three days in early July with my RED SOX road jersey and my beat-up RED SOX cap.)

F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* will present the same argument to Massachusetts regulators and legislators that it will present to their counterparts in California: there is no change to what they are charging the customer and that is all with which anyone need be concerned. The TNCs will assert that the relationship between them and their drivers is a private matter with which the state (or Commonwealth, in the case of Massachusetts) need not concern itself. Will the Massachusetts regulators, legislators or even the courts buy that? That might depend on what can be "arranged".

FIFY


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs will insist that the relationship between them and their drivers is not a matter of concern to the state.


Unless we're talking about all legislators and enforcement agencies being bought wholesale and the labour codes in 50 states and 10 provinces being totally dismantled, that argument ain't travelling any further than a four dollar fare.


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> I kinda get the feeling Uber's new "we can charge whatever we want whenever we want" policy ain't gonna fly too well in California.


There is nothing new about it. The policy in the partner agreement section 4.1 reads:
"...you are entitled to a fare for each ride that you provide... ...fares vary by region, may vary by local supply and demand, and may also be adjusted by our discretion based on local market factors."

Just vague enough that leaves them lots of wiggle room.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Are you a lawyer?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> Unless we're talking about all legislators and enforcement agencies being bought wholesale and the labour codes in 50 states and 10 provinces being totally dismantled, that argument ain't travelling any further than a four dollar fare.


It has been quite some time since I lived in Canada, so I am not one-hundred per-cent sure what goes on there, any more. Perhaps you are correct on Canada or any of the provinces. I can not argue the point one way or another about Canada. In fact, I would not be surprised if there were some troubles for Uber from Québec about it. I lived in Montréal, so I know more about Québec than I do any other place in Canada.

In some states, here, however, the argument will go far. It might not get too far in New York, Massachusetts or California, but it will work out in the TNCs' favour in Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Wyoming, Virginia, the Carolinas and Florida. If it ever did make it to our Supreme Court, the drivers had better hope that Kennedy has not retired. He could go either way on this. If he retires any time soon and The Donald gets to make another appointment, it will go in Uber's favour, 5-4. If Kennedy is still there, it will go 5-4, but it could go either way.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Yeah, Québec Revenue raided Uber's Montréal offices in 2016, while Uber's security team in San Francisco remotely nuked all records.

So you're predicting that in those states Uber will be able to do _whatever_ it wants with regard to drivers?


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> There is nothing new about it. The policy in the partner agreement section 4.1 reads:
> "...you are entitled to a fare for each ride that you provide... ...fares vary by region, may vary by local supply and demand, and may also be adjusted by our discretion based on local market factors."
> 
> Just vague enough that leaves them lots of wiggle room.


Uh, yeah, there kinda is something new:

"In a ruling that could change the workplace status of people across the state, the California Supreme Court made it harder Monday for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors.

The unanimous decision has implications for the growing gig economy, such as Uber, Lyft and other app-driven services - but it could extend to nearly every employment sector."

Why are you quoting me the partner agreement? The California Supreme Court doesn't give two S's about the partner agreement.



UberBeemer said:


> There is nothing new about it.


This is new.

*San Francisco Subpoenas Uber and Lyft for Proof Drivers Aren't Employees*

https://gizmodo.com/san-francisco-subpoenas-uber-and-lyft-for-proof-drivers-1826398148


----------



## TheRealGnash

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


Alternatives? Such as what? Waiting 2 hrs for a Yellow Cab? Taking PAT that closes after 1am? Drunk driving? Those were the choices back then.


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> Why are you quoting me the partner agreement? The California Supreme Court doesn't give two S's about the partner agreemen


A couple of reasons. First, it is the document that is the basis of you and i working this gig. It is the prevailing codex of regulations we operate under. Second, to point out that the thing you seemed upset about is covered by this agreement and the language directly addresses your question of whether we just had to agree to them changing terms at will. Truth is, we already did.

And the supreme court might care, if any of the lawsuits challenging this status of ours makes it to that level. A case has to be tried, and appealed, and briefed, then heard by a high court before it creates any change in Uber's practices.

So, this reading tonight brings up another bit of interest. Everybody jumped on me earlier for labelling the surge manipulation trick as cherry picking. Many of you said that it was just good business practice, and i got the impression that most of those thought it was pretty clever.

I refer you to Section 2.5.2, nestled among the language discussing Ratings:
"...
Additionally, you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests for Transportation Services while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users of Uber's mobile application. If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."

I don't expect this will change how any of you will operate, but put it up here in case you find it interesting. It seems when we do this, we're in violation of the contract. Since they specify logging off, not just going offline, it looks like just moniitoring the heatmap is also a violation.

Something to think about.



tomatopaste said:


> Uh, yeah, there kinda is something new:
> 
> "In a ruling that could change the workplace status of people across the state, the California Supreme Court made it harder Monday for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors.
> 
> The unanimous decision has implications for the growing gig economy, such as Uber, Lyft and other app-driven services - but it could extend to nearly every employment sector."
> 
> Why are you quoting me the partner agreement? The California Supreme Court doesn't give two S's about the partner agreement.
> 
> This is new.
> 
> *San Francisco Subpoenas Uber and Lyft for Proof Drivers Aren't Employees*
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/san-francisco-subpoenas-uber-and-lyft-for-proof-drivers-1826398148


This will be interesting to follow.



tomatopaste said:


> Uh, yeah, there kinda is something new:
> 
> "In a ruling that could change the workplace status of people across the state, the California Supreme Court made it harder Monday for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors.
> 
> The unanimous decision has implications for the growing gig economy, such as Uber, Lyft and other app-driven services - but it could extend to nearly every employment sector."
> 
> Why are you quoting me the partner agreement? The California Supreme Court doesn't give two S's about the partner agreement.
> 
> This is new.
> 
> *San Francisco Subpoenas Uber and Lyft for Proof Drivers Aren't Employees*
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/san-francisco-subpoenas-uber-and-lyft-for-proof-drivers-1826398148


I guess what remains to be seen is whether the city attorney is just looking for another source of revenue (another fee to be collected) or really does want to sort this out. Cali is pretty progressive, so perhaps it will be good for drivers and in 20 years other states might follow.


----------



## 503SwarmAgora

Anyone ever think the drivers might be working on an app? SMDH * no it's not Scam City


----------



## emdeplam

Hearing drivers a liking the longer more predictable 'new surge' as well as the advantages of shorter trips. Most of you boyz like long hard trips with the old multiplier surge, but I think you will find the shorter surge trips suits you better 

Moderator- I think there is an error in this thread. Most of the 17 pages of postings appear to be duplicates


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> A couple of reasons. First, it is the document that is the basis of you and i working this gig. It is the prevailing codex of regulations we operate under. Second, to point out that the thing you seemed upset about is covered by this agreement and the language directly addresses your question of whether we just had to agree to them changing terms at will. Truth is, we already did.
> 
> And the supreme court might care, if any of the lawsuits challenging this status of ours makes it to that level. A case has to be tried, and appealed, and briefed, then heard by a high court before it creates any change in Uber's practices.
> 
> So, this reading tonight brings up another bit of interest. Everybody jumped on me earlier for labelling the surge manipulation trick as cherry picking. Many of you said that it was just good business practice, and i got the impression that most of those thought it was pretty clever.
> 
> I refer you to Section 2.5.2, nestled among the language discussing Ratings:
> "...
> Additionally, you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests for Transportation Services while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users of Uber's mobile application. If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."
> 
> I don't expect this will change how any of you will operate, but put it up here in case you find it interesting. It seems when we do this, we're in violation of the contract. Since they specify logging off, not just going offline, it looks like just moniitoring the heatmap is also a violation.
> 
> Something to think about.
> 
> This will be interesting to follow.
> 
> I guess what remains to be seen is whether the city attorney is just looking for another source of revenue (another fee to be collected) or really does want to sort this out. Cali is pretty progressive, so perhaps it will be good for drivers and in 20 years other states might follow.


Uber is hanging by a thread in California. They're appealing but all they're doing is digging a deeper and deeper hole. This is what the CPUC commissioner wrote in her ruling:

Randolph wrote that problems arising from Uber's corporate structure were of "Uber's own design."​
"It was Uber's decision alone regarding how it would operate its business with the creation of subsidiaries totally lacking in employees and dependent on Uber to run their (ride-hail and charter) operations," she wrote.

*State regulator ruling could cost Uber 'millions'*
*http://www.sfexaminer.com/state-regulator-ruling-cost-uber-millions/#
*​There are already lawsuits working there way through the system and Uber will lose every single one of them. The Supreme Court has already ruled. Why did the SF city attorney ask for records going back three years?

Among other documentation, the subpoenas seek "a complete list of drivers who began or ended at least one ride in San Francisco from 2015 to the present" and "proof that any driver classified as an independent contractor meets all three criteria set by the California Supreme Court," according to a press release from the city's attorney​
Because Uber is liable for misclassification going back three years, not starting from the date of the ruling. This is going to happen in every city in California. Uber will be held liable for every driver Uber has misclassified as an independent contractor going back three years.

To classify someone as an independent contractor, the court said, businesses must show that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer; *(strike one)* performs work that is outside the hirer's core business; *(strike two) *and customarily engages in "an independently established trade, occupation or business." *(strike three)*


----------



## Uberduber420

emdeplam said:


> Hearing drivers a liking the longer more predictable 'new surge' as well as the advantages of shorter trips. Most of you boyz like long hard trips with the old multiplier surge, but I think you will find the shorter surge trips suits you better
> 
> Moderator- I think there is an error in this thread. Most of the 17 pages of postings appear to be duplicates


There nothing hard about making more than 50$ on a 25 mile trip. With the. NEw surge that is impossible now. With the new surge webah e to drive more miles and spend more time driving to make the same
Amount we made before. It's a pay cut.


----------



## TheRealGnash

I think they just want poor people who just came to America and will drive some Uber boss fleet car for $2.50 hr. That’s the dream of many of these big corp now.


----------



## UberBeemer

Uber Annie said:


> All DRIVERS are WELCOME join us at Uber Drivers Blackout ~ Enough Is Enough


The problem with using g FB for this is, that Uber can see member names now, and if you organize a strike, would have no trouble tracing this and knowing who participated, as opposed to who just didn't login that day. Maybe they don't care, but it would be a sucky reason to get deactivated.


----------



## Uber Annie

UberBeemer said:


> The problem with using g FB for this is, that Uber can see member names now, and if you organize a strike, would have no trouble tracing this and knowing who participated, as opposed to who just didn't login that day. Maybe they don't care, but it would be a sucky reason to get deactivated.


WHO CARES, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Then let try it I am sure there are attorneys ready to pounce on them. I hardly drive anymore but I will help take them down and get the national attention that DRIVERS & RIDERS deserve.


----------



## emdeplam

Uber Annie said:


> WHO CARES, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Then let try it I am sure there are attorneys ready to pounce on them. I hardly drive anymore but I will help take them down and get the national attention that DRIVERS & RIDERS deserve.


Have you tried the new surge?


----------



## jazzapt

Another Uber Driver said:


> I was not aware that TAXachusetts regulated the surge rates. What is the cap, there and when does it apply? (and yes, I can call it TAXachusetts; it is my home. I might live in the Capital of Your Nation, but I am from Massachusetts; *GO **RED SOX**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *--currently, they are beating Toronto and the Yankees are losing to Houston--might be three games out of first before the night is over!!!--and yes, I will be at Nationals park all three days in early July with my RED SOX road jersey and my beat-up RED SOX cap.)
> 
> F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* will present the same argument to Massachusetts regulators and legislators that it will present to their counterparts in California: there is no change to what they are charging the customer and that is all with which anyone need be concerned. The TNCs will assert that the relationship between them and their drivers is a private matter with which the state (or Commonwealth, in the case of Massachusetts) need not concern itself. Will the Massachusetts regulators, legislators or even the courts buy that? That might depend on what can be "arranged".
> 
> FIFY


Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there is a hard cap. However, anything over a 3x surge during a weather emergency will trigger an investigation to insure price gouging is not taking place. MA regulators are sensitive to price gouging.

I am not saying Uber won't get away with it here, but they would need to dot their I's and cross their T's before they roll it out. I can see Uber needing to convince MA regulators and legislators that there is a legitimate reason to charge a customer 4x the regular rate. I see MA being one state that would be keeping a close eye on how much of a take Uber makes off a surge.

PS, Red Sox are on FIRE!! Love me some Mookie. Its a good time to be a Boston sports fan. Although most of it will be ignored once Patriots training camp begins. Sometimes I miss when this was a baseball town


----------



## UberBeemer

Uber Annie said:


> WHO CARES, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Then let try it I am sure there are attorneys ready to pounce on them. I hardly drive anymore but I will help take them down and get the national attention that DRIVERS & RIDERS deserve.


Annie, it is also against the TOS here to post links to facebook.


----------



## UpoorPeople

I think UberBeemer has put me on his "ignore list", so I'll address him (her?) in 3rd person.

He's confused. He keeps referring to Uber's contract as if it's LAW and therefore absolutely binding on the signators. It's not and that's not how contracts work. This is the most common misconception about contract law, usually due to watching too much TV.


UberBeemer said:


> [Uber's partner agreement] is the prevailing codex of regulations we operate under.


Um, what? This shows clearly his real or feigned confusion. The Uber partner agreement isn't a "codex" of anything and doesn't set out regulations. And it's not "law". Uber (and maybe UberBeemer?) just really want and need us to _think_ that it's law. Total horse$£!+.

Employers can put whatever they want in a contract - worker always buys him lunch, gives back rubs every day at 3:30, every worker mistake means he works an extra day for free - and the worker can sign on _to all of it. _But the moment the worker decides "You know what? #@$! this. I'm not doing it", the employer has basically two options: fire the worker or take him to court for breach of contract (almost never happens).

If the employer chooses to fire the worker, he needs to be confident that a) each term of his contract _both_ does not contravene the labour code _and_ can be upheld by the law or b) that the worker is ignorant of his rights or is too afraid to pursue them.

So a contract isn't worth a whole lot until it is proven airtight in court, much like Uber's business model isn't worth a lot until its proven profitable. Employers, especially corporate ones, know this but actively propogate to workers the fairy tale that whatever you sign on to you you are _bound to _by law.

The sleaziest corporations put in all kinds of bs terms into their contracts knowing that 95% of workers will think they are bound, and that the onus will be on the other 5% to take them to court if they have a problem. They also include terms they know are borderline just to "aim high" so that if they are forced to argue in court there might be a chance to "concede" to the _actual_ terms they wanted in the first place. They throw piles of $#!+ at the wall and see what sticks.

The terms of the Uber partner agreement that UberBeemer refers to completely fly in the face of the basic laws regarding "independent contractors". A person's signature/"click accept", or a million people's signatures/"click accepts", doesn't change laws. Total horse$£!+ .

Uber's only real power over us is our own ignorance. Time to get off our knees people.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> So you're predicting that in those states Uber will be able to do _whatever_ it wants with regard to drivers?


Uber currently does what it wants with regard to its drivers in all fifty as it is. I have seen little to convince me that it will change in too many states. The recent cab driver suicides might motivate someone in New York to do something, but even then I can not be sure. Still, no policymaker or legislator in New York City ever met a regulation that he did not like. F*ub*a*r* may wail and caterwaul if New York City tries to regulate fares, but it will "suffer the indignity and bear that cross" as neither F*ub*a*r* nor Gr*yft* are going to give up _*that*_ market. The thing to keep in mind about New York is that Uber's "end run around" policy of going over local legislators' heads (as it did in Texas with respect to Austin, Houston and San Antonio) is more likely to fail in New York State than succeed. Albany always has recognised that New York City, due to a combination of the square kilometers, population size and population density is an entity unto itself in many respects. When Uber tries to "make arrangements" with Albany, the legislators might simply throw up their hands and tell Uber to go talk to the Boys in The City about it.

Thus far, it has seemed that the cost of "arrangements" in New York City has been far beyond what Uber has been willing to put up, as New York City does require the equivalent of a Hack Licence and requires a Law Enforcement Background Check to drive TNC. Uber had to discontinue Uber Taxi there, as well, because it could not get around the credit card processing oligopoly for the taxis. Thus, if you did use UberT (what Uber called Uber Taxi, there), you could use it only to summon your cab; you had to pay the driver once the trip was over. This defeated half the purpose of using Uber. Once other applications to summon taxis arrived, said applications' being put out by the "approved" credit card processors, people who wanted a cab stopped using UberT. Thus, Uber discontinued it.

They do not have Uber Taxi in Ottawa. They used to have it in Toronto, but dropped it, for some reason. Montréal still has it, but I suspect that this is because CUT Montréal demands that it be there. At one point, the only Uber that you could get in Montréal was Uber Taxi. The Taxi Union in Montréal used to be quite powerful, but I guess that it _*ain't as powerful as it used to be*_.



emdeplam said:


> Hearing drivers a liking the longer more predictable 'new surge' as well as the advantages of shorter trips. Most of you boyz like long hard trips with the old multiplier surge, but I think you will find the shorter surge trips suits you better


You are giving away yourself.

As long as we can cherry pick the short trips and screen out those longer than fifteen or twenty minutes, this might be tolerable. As it is, when there is a surge, I do not want the long trips, anyhow. They might pay good dollars for the trip itself, but once I discharge it, as a rule, not only am I out of the surge zone, but also I am far from one. When I am trying to hit a quest, I do not want the trip that takes more than twenty minutes. I can run two short ones in those same twenty minutes. I do much better, even on base rates, with short and mediocre trips.

Now, if Uber would go back to showing the pick up addresses, and, add that feature to stacked pings, I would be much happier. It would allow me to game this thing for maximum profit. If Uber and Lyft are going to pay 1979 cab rates, they need to give me a means of gaming this to make 2018 earnings.



jazzapt said:


> Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there is a hard cap.
> 
> However, anything over a 3x surge during a weather emergency will trigger an investigation to insure price gouging is not taking place.
> 
> I am not saying Uber won't get away with it here, but they would need to dot their I's and cross their T's before they roll it out. I can see Uber needing to convince MA regulators and legislators that there is a legitimate reason to charge a customer 4x the regular rate. I see MA being one state that would be keeping a close eye on how much of a take Uber makes off a surge.
> 
> PS, Red Sox are on FIRE!! Love me some Mookie.


So even Massachusetts does not have any specific regulation on rates; it simply has a procedure if they reach a level that may or may not bring sanctions.

What many, even regulators, fail to understand is that these surges are triggered by demand vs. supply and not _*directly*_ by conditions. If there is a meter of snow out there and no one is trying to summon a ride, _*there ain't gonna' be no surge*_. If Uber is giving most of the money to the drivers, I would suspect that Massachusetts would back off any sanctions or even written censure. If, as it appears under this _*res nova*_, that Uber is now going to retain most of the funds from a surge, I would suspect that Massachusetts _*might*_ look at it through a jaundiced eye.

Betts is supposed to be back Thursday. The Red Sox just signed Adam Lind. Some people in Boston are wondering why they do not call up that guy in Pawtucket. I am guessing that they are going on Lind's experience. He did a very good job for Washington last year, especially in July and August when all of those starters were hurt. Baker used him not just at First, but also in Left to substitute for Werth. In fact, it was as much Difo, Lind and Kendrick who kept Washington at the top of their division in the mid-to-end season as it was Murphy, Zimmerman and Werth who had them there in the beginning and the end. I had to wonder why Baker did not make more use of those three in the post-season, as they contributed as much during the regular season as did the starters. Washington did retain Kendrick, and with good reason, but I still wonder why they did not retain Lind. Despite that, Adams is filling in nicely where Lind was. I am stuck with a National League team, here, but, I go anyhow as I like the game. I get home enough that I can make it to Fenway a couple of times in the year and I can get to Baltimore when the Red Sox show up there. I have coped in National League towns before; Montréal and San Francisco.

Sadly, the Yankees did come from behind last night. So sad to see it.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.


The partners try to take advantage of Uber and the pax, the pax do what they can to take advantage of the partners and Uber, and Uber does the same.

People find a way to milk the surge for money, Uber naturally looks to change the rules to scratch the money back.

As far as these new rules, the Partners will find a way to take advantage of these, and Uber will respond again. Its all part of the game, its a dynamic situation.


----------



## UberBeemer

I_Like_Spam said:


> The partners try to take advantage of Uber and the pax, the pax do what they can to take advantage of the partners and Uber, and Uber does the same.
> 
> People find a way to milk the surge for money, Uber naturally looks to change the rules to scratch the money back.
> 
> As far as these new rules, the Partners will find a way to take advantage of these, and Uber will respond again. Its all part of the game, its a dynamic situation.


The inconsistency lies in how partners get totally worked up and fume about users trying to game them, but think it is just fine if they game users or Uber. Dynamic, maybe, but the pot, and the kettle...


----------



## tomatopaste

I_Like_Spam said:


> The partners try to take advantage of Uber and the pax, the pax do what they can to take advantage of the partners and Uber, and Uber does the same.
> 
> People find a way to milk the surge for money, Uber naturally looks to change the rules to scratch the money back.
> 
> As far as these new rules, the Partners will find a way to take advantage of these, and Uber will respond again. Its all part of the game, its a dynamic situation.


None of this would be necessary if not for Uber's convoluted business model. Uber is trying to have as large a customer base as possible and it's costing them billions in losses. This is one hundred percent on Uber. Drivers would take every single ride if Uber stopped trying to cater to pax that shouldn't be in the system in the first place.


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> None of this would be necessary if not for Uber's convoluted business model. Uber is trying to have as large a customer base as possible and it's costing them billions in losses. This is one hundred percent on Uber. Drivers would take every single ride if Uber stopped trying to cater to pax that shouldn't be in the system in the first place.


Maybe. I worked with people making easy 6 figures though, and some of them found something to carp about anyway.


----------



## emdeplam

tomatopaste said:


> None of this would be necessary if not for Uber's convoluted business model. Uber is trying to have as large a customer base as possible and it's costing them billions in losses. This is one hundred percent on Uber. Drivers would take every single ride if Uber stopped trying to cater to pax that shouldn't be in the system in the first place.


You just describe the cab business. It is still there...barely. At the end of the day most businesses survive based on their customers. The customer has spoken ....Uber yes //// taxi, rental car, car ownership, shared ride service NO.

We can all close our eyes and imagine some other universe, but on Earth the Uber model is the winner --> although a model with lower fares would best it (SDC)


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> The inconsistency lies in how partners get totally worked up and fume about users trying to game them, but think it is just fine if they game users or Uber. Dynamic, maybe, but the pot, and the kettle...


First of all, the word is drivers, not partners and passengers are passengers not users. Pax is also acceptable. It's really not that hard, charge a reasonable price and don't hire unlimited drivers, ya know, like every successful company on the planet does. Done. Was that so hard? Uber's the one that built this Rube Goldberg monstrosity.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UberBeemer said:


> some of them found something to carp about anyway.


Is not sleep wonderful? It allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four.


----------



## hulksmash

UberBeemer said:


> I don't expect this will change how any of you will operate, but put it up here in case you find it interesting. It seems when we do this, we're in violation of the contract. Since they specify logging off, not just going offline, it looks like just moniitoring the heatmap is also a violation.


That makes no sense. There been plenty of times I sat on my couch not planning to drive but was motivated to do so when surrounded by a big surge cloud around me. If only online drivers are allowed to see it, how are they supposed to recruit reinforcements who would otherwise not drive?


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> First of all, the word is drivers, not partners and passengers are passengers not users. Pax is also acceptable. It's really not that hard, charge a reasonable price and don't hire unlimited drivers, ya know, like every successful company on the planet does. Done. Was that so hard? Uber's the one that built this Rube Goldberg monstrosity.


Tomato, I am using language from the partnership agreement's section on definitions. 
1.14 "User" is end user authorized by uber to use uber mobile app for the purpose of obtaining transportation services



hulksmash said:


> That makes no sense. There been plenty of times I sat on my couch not planning to drive but was motivated to do so when surrounded by a big surge cloud around me. If only online drivers are allowed to see it, how are they supposed to recruit reinforcements who would otherwise not drive?


I can only tell you that the wording is clear. I won't tell you not to. That is up to you.


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> The inconsistency lies in how partners get totally worked up and fume about users trying to game them, but think it is just fine if they game users or Uber. Dynamic, maybe, but the pot, and the kettle...


Seems you're pretty worked up about partners getting "totally worked up" as you keep bringing it up. Pot, kettle and all that .

The inconsistency lies in a figment of your deliberate misunderstanding of basic facts.

"Independent contractors", a legal designation in jurisdictions across North America, choosing which contracts to accept or decline =* entirely above board, ethical and legal*.
Uber, a cutthroat business model too greedy to use employee drivers, but then attempting to impose the same strictures of employees by changing agreements every few weeks to limit IC's right to negotiate their own rates and accept and decline contracts = *underhanded, unethical and totally illegal.*
See? No contradiction. Because these are apples and oranges.


----------



## emdeplam

UpoorPeople said:


> Seems you're pretty worked up about partners getting "totally worked up" as you keep bringing it up. Pot, kettle and all that .
> 
> The inconsistency lies in a figment of your deliberate misunderstanding of basic facts.
> 
> "Independent contractors", a legal designation in jurisdictions across North America, choosing which contracts to accept or decline =* entirely above board, ethical and legal*.
> Uber, a cutthroat business model too greedy to use employee drivers, but then attempting to impose the same strictures of employees by changing agreements every few weeks to limit IC's right to negotiate their own rates and accept and decline contracts = *underhanded, unethical and totally illegal.*
> See? No contradiction. Because these are apples and oranges.


Strong words partner. You all should agree to disagree and realize there is money to be made out there right now. Posting the same point over and over does not make it more or less true.

Good driving and keep Moving Forward!


----------



## hulksmash

UberBeemer said:


> Tomato, I am using language from the partnership agreement's section on definitions.
> 1.14 "User" is end user authorized by uber to use uber mobile app for the purpose of obtaining transportation services
> 
> I can only tell you that the wording is clear. I won't tell you not to. That is up to you.


Even in Uber's perfect fantasy world there is no way they could have expected non willing drivers to drive without allowing them access to the heat map, thereby communicating that there is a reason to do so.

They likely meant for surge to be a tool to redistribute drivers already working for base rates to get them to a desired area. This new surge system goes back to those roots and appears to cater to those drivers who keep getting the proverbial rug pulled from under them, because they couldn't figure out where to be and anticipate surge ahead of time.


----------



## emdeplam

hulksmash said:


> Even in Uber's perfect fantasy world there is no way they could have expected non willing drivers to drive without allowing them access to the heat map, thereby communicating that there is a reason to do so.
> 
> They likely meant for surge to be a tool to redistribute drivers already working for base rates to get them to a desired area. This new surge system goes back to those roots and appears to cater to those drivers who keep getting the proverbial rug pulled from under them, because they couldn't figure out where to be and anticipate surge ahead of time.


Drivers were heard! The whole multiplication thing was a mental nightmare...I mean we are sooo past school- right! Who can tell what 1.7x really is/ really. Now you can see a fixed dollar value. + Thank goodness addition. Now we can all breath easy again


----------



## JoshInReno

tomatopaste said:


> Let's do some role-playing, shall we?
> 
> *Pax:* I got a 4:05 flight are we going to make it?
> *Tomato:* Eh, we're cutting it a bit close but you should make it. Was it hard to get an Uber?
> *Pax:* Ya I'm been waiting for 20 minutes.
> *Tomato:* Sorry about that. It's a lot harder to get Uber's these days.
> *Pax:* Yeah why is that?
> *Tomato:* Uber's new surge policy, there's less incentive to drive.
> *Pax:* What policy?
> *Tomato:* Well before, drivers used to get 80% of the surge now Uber takes the entire surge.
> *Pax:* Wait a EFFING MINUTE, I'm paying 4x's surge and you don't get any of it?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* So now it usually costs me 4x's surge instead of the usual 2x's surge to get to the airport at this time of the day, and half the time I still can't get an Uber. So the 4x's surge I'm paying isn't even used by Uber to incentivize drivers to go online?
> *Tomato:* Yuppers
> *Pax:* EFFING A!


Your example is 100% valid. But, let's assume a couple of things: 1. That the pax knows what the surge is (a bunch of them have no idea as I am constantly explaining it 2. The pax cares how much the driver makes.

The pax in your play is now left with two options.

1. Resort to taxis
2. Accept longer wait times

Neither of these two options will put more money into the drivers pocket.

The outrage experienced by both us and them (drivers and pax) will do nothing to change the new policy. I'm not happy about it and am complaining (even though it isn't in my market yet) at every chance I get. But I am not expecting any results and need to make a choice as to whether or not to continue driving.


----------



## tomatopaste

JoshInReno said:


> Your example is 100% valid. But, let's assume a couple of things: 1. That the pax knows what the surge is (a bunch of them have no idea as I am constantly explaining it 2. The pax cares how much the driver makes.
> 
> The pax in your play is now left with two options.
> 
> 1. Resort to taxis
> 2. Accept longer wait times
> 
> Neither of these two options will put more money into the drivers pocket.
> 
> The outrage experienced by both us and them (drivers and pax) will do nothing to change the new policy. I'm not happy about it and am complaining (even though it isn't in my market yet) at every chance I get. But I am not expecting any results and need to make a choice as to whether or not to continue driving.


The Supreme Court in California has already ruled that Uber drivers are not independent contractors. Only reason Uber is continuing to operate under the current business model is that they are appealing it. They will lose. Uber is digging a deeper and deeper hole every day that goes by because they are liable for every driver they have misclassified as an independent contractor going back three years.

There's very little light at the end of the tunnel for investors. Rideshare is a better model than the old taxi model so if Uber goes under taxis will adapt or new Rideshare companies will take Uber's place.



emdeplam said:


> Strong words partner. You all should agree to disagree and realize there is money to be made out there right now. Posting the same point over and over does not make it more or less true.
> 
> Good driving and keep Moving Forward!


There's money to be made at Taco Bell as well, yet only entry-level employees are willing to work at Taco Bell.


----------



## hulksmash

emdeplam said:


> Drivers were heard! The whole multiplication thing was a mental nightmare...I mean we are sooo past school- right! Who can tell what 1.7x really is/ really. Now you can see a fixed dollar value. + Thank goodness addition. Now we can all breath easy again


I think they have a good profile of what he average Uber driver mental capacity is, and have mastered ways on how to sell changes that lower our earnings. They can no longer sell them on "lower rates equals more money" so this is their new mantra. I doubt Uber sat down with drivers who said this is what they wanted. Then again they could have.


----------



## tomatopaste

Another Uber Driver said:


> Is not sleep wonderful? It allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four.


Is there a reason most moderators seem to advocate drivers just bend over and accept the company line, or is it just a coincidence?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

If you would be so good as to demonstrate where I have specifically advocated accepting F*ub*a*r*'s and Gr*yft*'s propaganda, I would be delighted to see it. My driving a cab should be enough to demonstrate my failing to support what either TNC does,

As for the other Moderator who is in-topic, I will not presume to post words for him on the subject.

I do not see that he is advocating the "company line", it is more that he is pointing out the reality of the situation.



emdeplam said:


> Good driving and keep Moving Forward!


You forgot to add "Uber On!".



tomatopaste said:


> Is there a reason most moderators seem to advocate drivers just bend over and accept the company line, or is it just a coincidence?


----------



## UpoorPeople

emdeplam said:


> Strong words *partner*


 Uber, _is that you?_

But seriously... you have a pretty thin skin perhaps? I'm merely pointing out that this pot was calling the kettle a pot.


emdeplam said:


> Posting the same point over and over does not make it more or less true.


No, but it increases the likelihood of greater numbers of people reading, understanding and agreeing with it, especially since it's true. I also quite enjoy it.

But it's funny you should bring this up cause I was just about to sign off of this one and say sayonara for now. Catch y'all on the flip side of this wave.


----------



## tomatopaste

emdeplam said:


> You just describe the cab business. It is still there...barely. At the end of the day most businesses survive based on their customers. The customer has spoken ....Uber yes //// taxi, rental car, car ownership, shared ride service NO.
> 
> We can all close our eyes and imagine some other universe, but on Earth the Uber model is the winner --> although a model with lower fares would best it (SDC)


Of course, the pax love Uber. Half their ride is being subsidized with investor cash. If Uber had to survive solely on their customers they'd've been toast years ago. They survive on investor cash and buying off local politicians to avoid having to play by the rules. But that's coming to an end.



Another Uber Driver said:


> If you would be so good as to demonstrate where I have specifically advocated accepting F*ub*a*r*'s and Gr*yft*'s propaganda


Specifically this:

"Is not sleep wonderful? It allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four."

You equate not bending over and just accepting whatever Uber decrees as just whining. I mean how could anybody object to Uber arbitrarily deciding to take drivers' surge pay? - The company line.


----------



## f1zero

Another Uber Driver said:


> If you would be so good as to demonstrate where I have specifically advocated accepting F*ub*a*r*'s and Gr*yft*'s propaganda, I would be delighted to see it. My driving a cab should be enough to demonstrate my failing to support what either TNC does,
> 
> As for the other Moderator who is in-topic, I will not presume to post words for him on the subject.
> 
> I do not see that he is advocating the "company line", it is more that he is pointing out the reality of the situation.
> 
> You forgot to add "Uber On!".


Plot twist: Another Uber Driver is actually another taxi driver


----------



## JqYork

emdeplam said:


> You truly do not understand Ubers motivations. They serve the customer. They need critical mass....critical coverage first ...before they work on profit. The surge games drove tons of pax to alternatives. Uber has to burn so many employees on handling airport BS etc... Big waste of time.
> 
> Uber isnt out to screw drivers. Uber will even take a certain level of games. But Uber cares deeply for the pax and they will defend that experience.


That may well be. But what Uber is going to find is that half the drivers who quit after less than a year will skyrocket to 75%. Then they'll have a permanent shortage of drivers.

The bottom line is - if they want to eliminate surges, they'll have to increase pay to drivers. They already have to offer boosts and bonuses to get drivers on the road. That is in effect a pay increase. Because the pay based on their current rates simply don't justify most drivers spending their time on the road with them. That's why they offer boosts and bonuses. Because they found that without them they weren't get enough drivers on the road.

The boosts and bonuses though are so small that they alone do not get enough drivers on the road. Surges make up for that and are what motivates most drivers to get out and drive. When they take that away they're going to wake up with a big hangover when they realize a ton more of their drivers have simply vanished.

It's easy to sign on with Uber and it's equally as easy to sign off. When guys are making $3 an hour - believe me - they'll find better opportunities elsewhere.


----------



## Woohaa

In terms of driver retention this latest move is no different from scores of drivers leaving the platform years ago because the per mile rate was lowered. 

Vets will be less likely to work late or do bars because what they'll make now for doing the same job is so much lower than it was. But new drivers who never experienced the previous surge won't care. Yeah, the days of making more off the surge than base are over, but it won't make a difference.


----------



## jfinks

This stuff is just getting too complicated. Their support system is gonna get bombarded by issues.

All of this can be fixed by just multiplying every current rate by 1.5 permanently (for now) for X. This fixes the rate issues with daily grinders.

Then boost the whole city by 1.5x during evening until 6am. On Friday and Sat nights the whole city is 2x after midnight - 6am. They can still keep the surge map showing approximate demand but just use it as a guide.

They do this and I would be fine with a straight across the board 30% cut for for uber on all rides. No more, no less, including the booking fee.

They do all of this they could probably reduce their support staff by 50%.


----------



## JoshInReno

Woohaa said:


> In terms of driver retention this latest move is no different from scores of drivers leaving the platform years ago because the per mile rate was lowered.
> 
> Vets will be less likely to work late or do bars because what they'll make now for doing the same job is so much lower than it was. But new drivers who never experienced the previous surge won't care. Yeah, the days of making more off the surge than base are over, but it won't make a difference.


I think you're on to something.

Each new generation of drivers has no idea what it used to look like. Uber is finding the bottom of the driver market: keeping lowering pay until the driver recruitment drops to a non-sustainable point.


----------



## Uber Annie

emdeplam said:


> Have you tried the new surge?


yes, i tried it last Thursday and Saturday


----------



## rebutfyl

does "destination filter" still get surge?


----------



## fusionuber

rebutfyl said:


> does "destination filter" still get surge?


yes


----------



## Ajaywill

1rightwinger said:


> Here is how to beat it.....simple concept but I know it would be nearly impossible to make it happen.....but wouldn't this be sweet if it could happen......here it is......in any test city where Uber tries this new surge, a high percentage of drivers should simply not drive during surges.
> 
> Result, Uber will have customers that they are able to charge high amounts to but they will have not enough "partners" to provide the service (because they are not paying enough to the partners). If this happens enough then they would not be able to implement this surge.


This is exactly my plan. I will not drive after sporting events, concerts, bar close, etc. No way I'm putting up with all that traffic and hassle for an extra $5 or $10 when under the multiplier system I would have made an extra $20 or $30


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> As for the other Moderator who is in topic, I do not see that he is advocating the "company line", it is more that he is pointing out the reality of the situation.


Good effort, but dude's been shown to be factually wrong in 31 different flavors. He's pointing out "reality" as Uber would have us believe it to be, and maybe he's even doing it for free . We haven't heard from him in a while though. Looks like you had to tag him out... You're more interesting at least. I like your taxi stories.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

emdeplam said:


> Drivers were heard! The whole multiplication thing was a mental nightmare...I mean we are sooo past school- right! Who can tell what 1.7x really is/ really. Now you can see a fixed dollar value. + Thank goodness addition. Now we can all breath easy again


You really believe that? Yeah, instead of 1.7X just give me $9 or less so I can count my bonus using my fingers. You need a vacation, your constant shill work has worn you out to where you can't make a decent fake argument.


----------



## tarajt

I have seen a huge drop in my surges. How many times do you see a surge for LAX, drive there only for it to go to flat rate when you arrive? Uber is making it difficult to make money. I think the rationale is they compensate for the new number-of-trips promo; therefore, they do not offer as many surges. I know they wanted me to drive a long trip during rush hour without a surge/boost in LA. I have no motivation to drive for them. It is too bad because I have a nice, clean car and good rating. I now cancel more often because I will not make money. Then my status declines. Also, although Uber prompts you to cancel after 5 minutes, the cancellation goes on your cancellation rating.



RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed





touberornottouber said:


> Don't forget that they know where 99% of trips are going. They have the pickup address and the destination address prior to sending you the ping. It would be simple for the algorithm to see that you have a surge due and then give you a highly undesireable minimum fare ride 23 minutes and 10 miles away for your next ride. Then you get to drive 23 minutes to earn that extra $1 surge. If you decline that 23 minute away ride then you lose your surge and Uber gets to pocket even more.
> 
> Also this is a "technology company". Remember that it would be trivial for them to program in a cap per hour, day, week, month, or even year for your earnings. They know the estimated value of every single ride they give to you. For all we know we each have an entry in a database somewhere with a certain set of numbers which dictate how much we are "allowed" to earn per hour, day, week, or month on the platform. Think they wouldn't do that? I'm not so sure anymore....


I agree. I once called to inquire as to why my trip requests were less frequent, my promos were lower, and surges weren't as high. They looked at my account and mentioned something about status. After the phone call, my trip requests kicked into high gear. I was elevated to a higher status. They definitely control you. This is my biggest complaint. You think you are an independent contractor, but at the end of the day, they still dictate how much money you make. It is all calculated. You have an algorithm designed for you.


----------



## emdeplam

JqYork said:


> That may well be. But what Uber is going to find is that half the drivers who quit after less than a year will skyrocket to 75%. Then they'll have a permanent shortage of drivers.
> 
> The bottom line is - if they want to eliminate surges, they'll have to increase pay to drivers. They already have to offer boosts and bonuses to get drivers on the road. That is in effect a pay increase. Because the pay based on their current rates simply don't justify most drivers spending their time on the road with them. That's why they offer boosts and bonuses. Because they found that without them they weren't get enough drivers on the road.
> 
> The boosts and bonuses though are so small that they alone do not get enough drivers on the road. Surges make up for that and are what motivates most drivers to get out and drive. When they take that away they're going to wake up with a big hangover when they realize a ton more of their drivers have simply vanished.
> 
> It's easy to sign on with Uber and it's equally as easy to sign off. When guys are making $3 an hour - believe me - they'll find better opportunities elsewhere.


Just curious for the Charlotte folks, are there any Uber drivers left or is it some kind of Rideshare apocalypse?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> Specifically this:
> 
> "Is not sleep wonderful? It allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four."
> 
> You equate not bending over and just accepting whatever Uber decrees as just whining. I mean how could anybody object to Uber arbitrarily deciding to take drivers' surge pay? - The company line.


*R.I.F.*; it stands for *R*eading *I*s *F*undamental or *R*eading *I*s [your] *F*riend.

Had you read the quote to which I posted the "sleep" saw in reply, you would have noted that it was a response to what the poster stated about working in retail and how people were always finding something about which to carp. It had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You are, perhaps, aware of a feature of this forum where you can go to the profile page of a Member (that includes me) and see his posts? If you will take the trouble to read a few of mine, you will learn that I support anything but the "company" line. In fact, I often post in reply to those who post the overbending metaphor (as have you) that not only does Uber not use any K-Y, but if you try to bring your own, they take it away. Oh no, you get it raw and dry from Uber and Lyft. The only difference is that Lyft lets you wear a pink tutu......just hope that one day it does not decide to make you wear ballet boots and does not give you the benefit of a bench, either.

So no, that "sleep" post was not equating "not bending over and accepting whatever Uber decrees as just whining".



f1zero said:


> Plot twist: Another Uber Driver is actually another taxi driver


In reality, I am both cab and UberX. Uber offers taxis in my market, so I have Uber Taxi for the cab. Uber Taxi is not available in many markets, but it is in mine. So yes, I am, in fact, another taxi driver who happens to be Another Uber Driver !



UpoorPeople said:


> *Good effort*, but dude's been shown to be factually wrong in 31 different flavors.
> 
> He's pointing out "reality" as Uber would have us believe it to be, and maybe he's even doing it for free . We haven't heard from him in a while though.
> 
> Looks like you had to tag him out...
> 
> You're more interesting at least. I like your taxi stories.


 (emphasis added)

You and what's-his-face are the only ones who believe that. I have not seen it.

Reading Is [also your] Friend. He has stated more than once that he has put you on "iggies".

........................oh, and you know what you can do with that condescending attitude: *......toujours les boss des bécosses, vous-autres blokes..... *


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> Is there a reason most moderators seem to advocate drivers just bend over and accept the company line, or is it just a coincidence?


I can speak for myself on that, Tomato. I am trying to illustrate a fact. I realize in this day and age, some people see examples every day of someone using verbal fog to delegitimize facts, and take that lead when something upsets them

But guys like me are just a messenger. We didn't make the fact up. We just expressed it.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> I can speak for myself on that, Tomato. I am trying to illustrate a fact. I realize in this day and age, some people see examples every day of someone using verbal fog to delegitimize facts, and take that lead when something upsets them
> 
> But guys like me are just a messenger. We didn't make the fact up. We just expressed it.


Well to me you come across as someone carrying water for the mothership. Just so you know.


----------



## UberBeemer

tomatopaste said:


> Well to me you come across as someone carrying water for the mothership. Just so you know.


That's fine. You're entitled to think what you want.

Would you like to know how you sound to me?


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> That's fine. You're entitled to think what you want.
> 
> Would you like to know how you sound to me?


James Earl Jones/Darth Vader?


----------



## UpoorPeople

UberBeemer said:


> I realize in this day and age, some people see examples every day of someone using verbal fog to delegitimize facts, and take that lead when something upsets them


You realize this because you have so much experience with this technique? That's exactly what I've been thinking! Finally, something we agree on. Attempting to de-legitimize the facts regarding "independent contractors" with verbal fog is really the tactic of someone who's run out of bullets.

Glad you cleared that up.


----------



## UberBeemer

I have no idea how he writes, so No. you sound like someone so upset that Uber is up to their tricks again, that unless they agree completely, you won't be able to hear what people have to say without rejecting it out of hand.


----------



## moJohoJo

jgiun1 said:


> I'm not much of a sweater when it comes to things out of your control....I feel if it becomes to bad, I'll seek full time employment and do the side gig Uber Lyft.
> 
> The day I see 75% of a fare consistently taken from every ride, I'll quit the rideshare for good.
> 
> So many people here got scared when the self drivers were brought here. I was always asked by passengers in early stages "what will you do when they take over the city".... refer to paragraph one for answer I gave.
> 
> I was drawn into it more for the flexibility and I would miss that more than ever.
> 
> It would be nice to go back to the days when I never looked or cared what a gallon of gas costs.....lol


it's gotten close here, I MEAN REALLY CLOSE . TO 60 % commission for uber . LATELY, AFTER CKG. MY TRIPS ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN OVER 50 % .


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> I have no idea how he writes, so No. you sound like someone so upset that Uber is up to their tricks again, that unless they agree completely, you won't be able to hear what people have to say without rejecting it out of hand.


Please spell out the base case scenario you see happening in the next year for Uber.


----------



## UberBeemer

Looks like surge gaming is radically altered or done away with, and drivers have to find a routine that works. That's all I can figure for now.


----------



## tomatopaste

UberBeemer said:


> Looks like surge gaming is radically altered or done away with, and drivers have to find a routine that works. That's all I can figure for now.


There is no routine that will every work for drivers because there is no future for drivers. Uber has no money to increase driver pay and they never will. Waymo is getting ready to launch in Phoenix and Dara is going hat in hand to Waymo to try and pick up some scraps.

*Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says he's trying to convince Alphabet to put Waymo self-driving cars on the company's network*

*https://www.recode.net/2018/5/31/17390030/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-code-conference-interview





*
Waymo already has taxi stands in Chandler AZ.


----------



## RedSteel

tomatopaste said:


> There is no routine that will every work for drivers because there is no future for drivers. Uber has no money to increase driver pay and they never will. Waymo is getting ready to launch in Phoenix and Dara is going hat in hand to Waymo to try and pick up some scraps.
> 
> *Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says he's trying to convince Alphabet to put Waymo self-driving cars on the company's network*
> 
> *https://www.recode.net/2018/5/31/17390030/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-code-conference-interview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Waymo already has taxi stands in Chandler AZ.
> 
> View attachment 233448


Ummmmm.....no freaking way

I want a human at the wheel.....I wouldn't use a self driving car



emdeplam said:


> Drivers were heard! The whole multiplication thing was a mental nightmare...I mean we are sooo past school- right! Who can tell what 1.7x really is/ really. Now you can see a fixed dollar value. + Thank goodness addition. Now we can all breath easy again


Your a joke account right?

Just a troll looking to piss people off

This is a serious subject that is effecting peoples lives and taking money out of their families homes. Respect that and move on


----------



## Failed Login

moJohoJo said:


> it's gotten close here, I MEAN REALLY CLOSE . TO 60 % commission for uber . LATELY, AFTER CKG. MY TRIPS ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN OVER 50 % .


Same here in Charlotte, I average bout 60% on non-surge trips. Less than 50% on surge trips. Some surge trips around 25%-30%. last spring and summer I averaged 70% of the fare and often more on surge rides.

And yes, there are still some drivers in Charlotte. I drive on my way to the airport every Monday morning. Noticed on Tuesday this week (Monday was holiday), there were 7-8 drivers in my area of South Charlotte. Several sat for hours at the gas stations, Coffee shops, Walmart, where they go to await rides each morning. Saw a guy sit at the QT near my house for over 2 hours. I go online from the house and eat, watch a show, until I get a ride. I'd never sit at a gas station for 2+hours waiting. Sucks for them. I got my $26 ride in just as I reached the time I had to leave to get there myself, which was unusually long. I normally get a 4am ride, then make a few more from the South End area before parking myself. Slow holiday week, but plenty of drivers out as evidenced by no Monday am airport rush hour surge.


----------



## goneubering

Uber Annie said:


> WHO CARES, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Then let try it I am sure there are attorneys ready to pounce on them. I hardly drive anymore but I will help take them down and get the national attention that DRIVERS & RIDERS deserve.


Sorry to burst your bubble but nobody is taking down Uber.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

goneubering said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but nobody is taking down Uber.


..................and if, for whatever reason, Uber actually does go bust, there will be fifty TNCs trying to step in and take its place............................


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> ..................and if, for whatever reason, Uber actually does go bust, there will be fifty TNCs trying to step in and take its place............................


And they'll go bust too unless they learn from Uber's abysmal failures.


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but nobody is taking down Uber.


Waymo and GM/Cruise are taking down Uber. Softbank is investing 2 billion in Cruise and GM is throwing in another billion. Cruise says they'll be producing SDC's at scale by next year, meaning at least 100k. That's enough to do 5 million rides a day. Uber does 5 million rides a day. And that's not even taking into account Waymo.


----------



## UberLady10001

I will take what my corporate masters offer and be happy.
Because I AM AN UBER!
It's a privilege to drive for Uber.
I'm a partner.


----------



## Cynergie

Fascinating. One could almost hypothesize Softbank was hedging their bets with it's 15% stake in Uber......


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> And they'll go bust too unless they learn from Uber's abysmal failures.


............and another firm will replace that one, as well. As my boss told me at Maislin Brothers in Montréal:

"Quand que tu viens icitte, c'est pour remplacer quelqu'un; quand que tu partiras, quelqu'un viendra pour te remplacer."

The English equivalent of that is "When you came here, you replaced someone else; when you leave, there will be someone else."


----------



## UpoorPeople

Travis Kalanick on the purpose of surge pricing, 2013:

_Uber co-founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick used to talk about how the first goal of surge pricing, Uber's practice of raising rates when lots of people were trying to get a ride, was to keep the service reliable. _*"We don't just charge to make a buck," *_he posted on Facebook in December 2013. *"The vast majority goes to the driver so that we can maximize the number of drivers on the road. The point is in order to provide you with a reliable ride, prices need to go up."*__ - Quartz
_​So if we invert his logic, it would suggest that if the "vast majority" of fares are _not_ going to drivers, Uber will _not_ be maximizing the number of drivers on the road and will _not_ be able to ensure a reliable service for passengers.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> "When you came here, you replaced someone else; when you leave, there will be someone else."


An employee leaving a job doesn't mean _failure_ the way a business vanishing necessarily does. Apples and oranges. It's unlikely that big business after big business would enter into the same industry if they all kept failing. Everyone would quickly realize that either the model needs to be radically altered or there just is no viable profit prospect.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> An employee leaving a job doesn't mean _failure_ the way a business vanishing necessarily does. Apples and oranges. It's unlikely that big business after big business would enter into the same industry if they all kept failing. Everyone would quickly realize that either the model needs to be radically altered or there just is no viable profit prospect.


You missed the point. Now you are criticising just to do it. The point is this: Uber and Lyft disappear to-morrow; something will replace them. If the replacements disappear, something else will replace them. There is no more to it than that. Anything more to it is strictly in your mind and in the mind of those who might agree with you: both of them.


----------



## UpoorPeople

Another Uber Driver said:


> You missed the point. Now you are criticising just to do it. The point is this: Uber and Lyft disappear to-morrow; something will replace them. If the replacements disappear, something else will replace them. There is no more to it than that. Anything more to it is strictly in your mind and in the mind of those who might agree with you: both of them.


_Au contraire, mon frère,_ you are missing or avoiding the main point. *If* Uber and Lyft "disappear" because the economics of rideshare stop working or never did work (no profit has ever been made) *then* only idiots will take the their place and those idiots will also fail. Soon even the idiots will get the drift and stop taking each others' place.

Notice I use the conditional clause_ "if"_?You on the other hand are "crystal ball gazing" saying "THIS WILL HAPPEN". It never ceases to amaze me how ordinary people think they *know the future *while wall street analysts scrutinize data 24/7 just to arrive at what they consider their best guess.


----------



## Mido toyota

I personally think it's an amazing idea, so some drivers doesn't cherry pick there surge rides to maximize there profit, because now a days at bar time there will be people making a hundred plus on one long surged ride, while most of us make minimum fare trips,, so yes I support flat dollar surge


----------



## Kastor

Mido toyota said:


> I personally think it's an amazing idea, so some drivers doesn't cherry pick there surge rides to maximize there profit, because now a days at bar time there will be people making a hundred plus on one long surged ride, while most of us make minimum fare trips,, so yes I support flat dollar surge


----------



## Mido toyota

Kastor said:


>


Yes I support flat dollar surge, and I support lower prices per mile, we need a boost in trips,


----------



## UpoorPeople




----------



## Another Uber Driver

UpoorPeople said:


> Notice I use the conditional clause_ "if"_?You on the other hand are "crystal ball gazing" saying "THIS WILL HAPPEN".
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how ordinary people think they *know the future *while wall street analysts scrutinize data 24/7 just to arrive at what they consider their best guess.


Condescension failed, so you will try to put words onto my keyboard, -eh? I had assumed that you might understand that when I typed "Uber and Lyft disappear to-morrow" that this was theoretical. I would expect that it might be obvious to any ant, even, that neither Uber nor Lyft is going to shut down to-morrow. In fact, to-morrow is here and guess what? Both Uber and Lyft are still here. .................but then, I never to seem to learn what happens when anyone Ass U Me s.

If, however, you refer to my "predicting" that some firm will replace them, that "prediction" is not without foundation. "Find a need and fill it" is an old saw that students learn even before they take Economics 101. There is a need/demand for reliable ground transportation for hire. If Uber has not proved anything else, it has proved that. The problem was that people could not get it, which was why they did not use it. When Uber Taxi showed up here (it was the second Uber, after Black--UberX was only in San Francisco, then, and operating under a somewhat different concept), people immediately noticed how cab service reliability had improved.* Uber has managed to fill this need.

The next foundation for my "prediction" is that demand has been proved high. If you can find demand, try to meet it and the cash will flow, which leads into the next point.

The cash flow, alone, is going to attract providers. The theoretical "new providers" will, of course, try to find a better way to direct more of that cash flow into their coffers and less into everyone else's coffers.

If you think that anyone who tries to replace Uber or Lyft (assuming that they do, indeed collapse) is going to try to do it in exactly the same way that those two did it, then you are missing something. I have no background in business or economics edge-uh-muh-kayshinn, but even I know that you can not succeed in business if you are not going to learn from people's mistakes. No, if Uber and Lyft fail, its replacements will have to try to learn why they failed and make sure that they do not do the same thing. If nothing else, they will have to try to do it differently on General Principles, alone.

Now, if you would be so good as to direct me to an article that states that if Uber and Lyft fail, nothing will take their place.................................

A while back, someone did a comparison: a monkey threw darts and the "Qualified Analyst" made his picks. Guess who won?

In reality, I am not trying to get involved in any discussion of why TNC will or will not work. There is demand for it, so someone is going to try to make it work. One problem is that the TNCs are not charging the customer enough for their services. More than one business has failed due to that. Cab rates are what they are for a reason.

Oh, and if your post above mine is directed at the poster from Raleigh, let me know, please. It does deserve a "like".

*I do not know if you have similar problems in Canada, but here, when a cab company told a prospective customer that it did not have anything available in the area from where he was calling, it got sued. An application's telling a prospective customer that it has nothing available for him has not triggered any lawsuit Y-E-T. I am not familiar with Ottawa, so I do not know if there are any slums, there. When I lived in Montréal, I lived in _*Sud Ouest*_, which at the time, WAS a slum. I do not know if you can be sued up there for having a ride available in _*Vieux Montréal*_, but not _*Sud Ouest*_. Of course, I do not know how familiar with Montréalm but I am guessing that you are more familiar with it than you are with Washington. Thus, had I made a comparison that a company would have a ride available on Capitol Hill but not Anacostia, it would be lost on you--and mind you, that is no criticism, as Ottawa is something shy of one thousand kilometers from Washington.


----------



## sirius black

For folks that think drivers are going along quietly with the surge redeux, Cincinnati drivers have a protest planned at the hub on Monday. It’s sounding like some local media is planning coverage. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.


----------



## jfinks

A lot of this could be fixed by more consistent tips. Maybe some rider discounts for tipping each time. Put it right in their face that it means a lot to drivers to get consistent tips when they are paying out waitress pay.


----------



## RideshareSpectrum

tomatopaste said:


> Nonsense. The only reason pax are ok with this is because they are unaware of the surge policy change. If pax knew they were paying 4x surge for no reason they would be livid.
> 
> Do you think the taxi industry is just going to sit idly by while Uber is allowed to quadruple fares just because they want to?
> 
> I did see the bat signal go out around midnight


PAX are being charged as much as they are willing to pay. Period. They don't care where it goes and you can try and tell them otherwise at cost of your tips and rating. 
You forgot to answer my question, Pastie. How many peanuts is your time worth? What's your rock bottom?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RideshareSpectrum said:


> PAX are being charged as much as they are willing to pay. Period.
> 
> They don't care where it goes.


Perhaps in your market, but here, they could raise the rates to $2,50 the mile, take their twenty/twenty-five per-cent plus fees and people here would STILL use the service. The ruling concern here is more convenience and less price. If they want to keep the bus riders, they could monkey with 
U-Pool/LL and let drivers opt in/opt out.

Your second sentence is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As long as he pushes a button and a ride shows up, the customer does not care what is happening with anything. No customer cared about anything that T. Kalanick ever said or if women were being harassed at Uber HQ.


----------



## Driver_With_Uber

So... I'm sitting in the middle of a red hot surge area... I get offered a ride outside of the surge area.... I just ignore it.... and therefore I will no longer be offered surge prices? If so.... what BS is this?

1 year driver, 2000 rides, 4.9 to 4.93 (varies) a ton of compliments etc. Guess I'll just focus on getting a better paid software dev job then. Not worth my time without surge tbh. I have long seen it that they have little respect for their bread and butter, the drivers. With fuel prices going up, and prices not...

On the plus side, I guess that a lot of career drivers will stick it out and benefit, unless they keep attracting people that do a few months then quit.


----------



## tomatopaste

RideshareSpectrum said:


> PAX are being charged as much as they are willing to pay. Period. They don't care where it goes and you can try and tell them otherwise at cost of your tips and rating.
> You forgot to answer my question, Pastie. How many peanuts is your time worth? What's your rock bottom?


Nonsense. Can taxi companies charge whatever the market will allow? So why can Uber?


----------



## Uber Annie

goneubering said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but nobody is taking down Uber.


I do not care one way or another because I have a real job I have been at for 19 yrs. Ubering is for fun & passes the boredom. I will still help put up a fight to bring them down or get their attention.


----------



## tomatopaste

Uber Annie said:


> I do not care one way or another because I have a real job I have been at for 19 yrs. Ubering is for fun & passes the boredom. I will still help put up a fight to bring them down or get their attention.


Good for you.



RideshareSpectrum said:


> PAX are being charged as much as they are willing to pay. Period. They don't care where it goes and you can try and tell them otherwise at cost of your tips and rating.
> You forgot to answer my question, Pastie. How many peanuts is your time worth? What's your rock bottom?


Also, when trying to provoke someone you can't just come out and call them a patsie or a patsy. You have to be more subtle than that. I realize the mothership can't be very happy, but then, how happy are they going to be with this work product?



sirius black said:


> For folks that think drivers are going along quietly with the surge redeux, Cincinnati drivers have a protest planned at the hub on Monday. It's sounding like some local media is planning coverage. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.


GOOD JOB CINCINNATI! This is what it takes. It's not even that hard of a fight cause the policy cannot survive media scrutiny.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Condescension failed, so you will try to put words onto my keyboard, -eh? I had assumed that you might understand that when I typed "Uber and Lyft disappear to-morrow" that this was theoretical. I would expect that it might be obvious to any ant, even, that neither Uber nor Lyft is going to shut down to-morrow. In fact, to-morrow is here and guess what? Both Uber and Lyft are still here. .................but then, I never to seem to learn what happens when anyone Ass U Me s.
> 
> If, however, you refer to my "predicting" that some firm will replace them, that "prediction" is not without foundation. "Find a need and fill it" is an old saw that students learn even before they take Economics 101. There is a need/demand for reliable ground transportation for hire. If Uber has not proved anything else, it has proved that. The problem was that people could not get it, which was why they did not use it. When Uber Taxi showed up here (it was the second Uber, after Black--UberX was only in San Francisco, then, and operating under a somewhat different concept), people immediately noticed how cab service reliability had improved.* Uber has managed to fill this need.
> 
> The next foundation for my "prediction" is that demand has been proved high. If you can find demand, try to meet it and the cash will flow, which leads into the next point.
> 
> The cash flow, alone, is going to attract providers. The theoretical "new providers" will, of course, try to find a better way to direct more of that cash flow into their coffers and less into everyone else's coffers.
> 
> If you think that anyone who tries to replace Uber or Lyft (assuming that they do, indeed collapse) is going to try to do it in exactly the same way that those two did it, then you are missing something. I have no background in business or economics edge-uh-muh-kayshinn, but even I know that you can not succeed in business if you are not going to learn from people's mistakes. No, if Uber and Lyft fail, its replacements will have to try to learn why they failed and make sure that they do not do the same thing. If nothing else, they will have to try to do it differently on General Principles, alone.
> 
> Now, if you would be so good as to direct me to an article that states that if Uber and Lyft fail, nothing will take their place.................................
> 
> A while back, someone did a comparison: a monkey threw darts and the "Qualified Analyst" made his picks. Guess who won?
> 
> In reality, I am not trying to get involved in any discussion of why TNC will or will not work. There is demand for it, so someone is going to try to make it work. One problem is that the TNCs are not charging the customer enough for their services. More than one business has failed due to that. Cab rates are what they are for a reason.
> 
> Oh, and if your post above mine is directed at the poster from Raleigh, let me know, please. It does deserve a "like".
> 
> *I do not know if you have similar problems in Canada, but here, when a cab company told a prospective customer that it did not have anything available in the area from where he was calling, it got sued. An application's telling a prospective customer that it has nothing available for him has not triggered any lawsuit Y-E-T. I am not familiar with Ottawa, so I do not know if there are any slums, there. When I lived in Montréal, I lived in _*Sud Ouest*_, which at the time, WAS a slum. I do not know if you can be sued up there for having a ride available in _*Vieux Montréal*_, but not _*Sud Ouest*_. Of course, I do not know how familiar with Montréalm but I am guessing that you are more familiar with it than you are with Washington. Thus, had I made a comparison that a company would have a ride available on Capitol Hill but not Anacostia, it would be lost on you--and mind you, that is no criticism, as Ottawa is something shy of one thousand kilometers from Washington.


Brevity is the soul of wit. This is too hard to read and so it won't get read by many people.



sirius black said:


> For folks that think drivers are going along quietly with the surge redeux, Cincinnati drivers have a protest planned at the hub on Monday. It's sounding like some local media is planning coverage. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.


We need to help Cincinnati get the word out. We need drivers to come from 2 hours away and as much media as possible. Call CNN, call Fox, call everyone.


----------



## RepublicanMikePence

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


There is a driver from Rhode Island (IMMA DRIVER) who posts constantly in the Boston forum.

He loves the new surge system. He has posted over and over again that he thinks this is a game changer for drivers and believes it is helping him make much more money than under the old system.

Don't believe me? Read his thread: https://uberpeople.net/threads/more-proof.263036/


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> Nonsense. Can taxi companies charge whatever the market will allow? So why can Uber?


Uber has made "arrangements" to allow this.



tomatopaste said:


> Brevity is the soul of wit.


.............and I have a reputation to uphold.......................................

If you do not read it, that is no great loss to me; it is not even a small one.


----------



## Ziggy

Mido toyota said:


> Yes I support flat dollar surge, and I support lower prices per mile, we need a boost in trips,


So, basically, you bought Uber's propaganda campaign "Lower Prices = More Trips = More Money" - you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

And while lower prices likely will generate more trips, lower prices will make most of those trips unprofitable


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Ziggy said:


> And while lower prices likely will generate more trips, lower prices will make most of those trips unprofitable


^^^^^^^^^^^^This, THIS and *THIS* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Dredrummond

A sucker is born every day


----------



## Mido toyota

Ziggy said:


> So, basically, you bought Uber's propaganda campaign "Lower Prices = More Trips = More Money" - you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> And while lower prices likely will generate more trips, lower prices will make most of those trips unprofitable


There is no trips is unprofitable trips, at the end of the day when you look at what you netted, you figure that if it is profitable or unprofitable,


----------



## GreatGooglyMoogly

tomatopaste said:


> Uber can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Not only can contractors talk about whatever they want to talk about, contractors set their own price.


No, they can't. Unless they run a rideshare company. Drivers have zero price setting power unless they can leave Uber entirely. And that requires a lot more ingrastructure than is possible for one driver to do.


----------



## tomatopaste

GreatGooglyMoogly said:


> No, they can't. Unless they run a rideshare company. Drivers have zero price setting power unless they can leave Uber entirely. And that requires a lot more ingrastructure than is possible for one driver to do.


Yes, they can. If they can't, Uber will have to pull out of California. Only reason Uber is allowed to continue with their business model is that Uber is appealing. They'll lose. And Uber is going to be liable for every driver they've misclassified going back three years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyma...blow-to-independent-contractors/#5926134270a1


----------



## RaleighUber

RedSteel said:


> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


Uber has consistently screwed over the driver since the company began. Nothing new here. If you have a strategy to control Uber/Lyft TOS, most are open to ideas. I suspect you don't know what to do and it's scary. As a former driver, there is only one question: will you keep taking it or quit and find a new gig?


----------



## Failed Login

Saturday night/Sunday morning in downtown Charlotte, I did my normal routine of making sure I was right in the heart of downtown at 2:15am as the bars are running people out. The surge usually goes to around $10 or so, which is the highest we get all week. I sit there offline until it reaches higher amounts and then turn my filter on toward home. Sometimes I will get a short trip to SouthEnd so I can then circle back downtown and catch another ride going south. But this weekend, the fixed surge reached an astounding $3.50. That's it. I wanted until 2:35am and it stayed the same for over 20 minutes. At 3 different times I was the only driver inside the interstate loop that circles downtown. THE ONLY DRIVER! I'd go online quickly to see if the surge map would update and I'd get requests until I could go back offline. Something was up. They screwed us again. Then of course the ride I get with my big $3.50 surge turned out to be a ride that paid me a total of $9.67 while Uber scored over $18. Sure is great sharing the wealth on rides that I should have been at home asleep for, vs sitting around town killing time.


----------



## UberLaLa

Yup, yup & yup.


----------



## heynow321

get it out there....

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/some-uber-drivers-cry-foul-over-new-pricing-policy/656456044


----------



## Uber Annie




----------



## tomatopaste

Uber Annie said:


>


Good job people. This policy will never survive media scrutiny. And the Uber double speak is truly grotesque.


----------



## heynow321

Don’t let gryft off the hook either. It’s boober and gryft


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> Good job people. This policy will never survive media scrutiny. And the Uber double speak is truly grotesque.


The only suggestion, don't make it about drivers. Explain how pax are paying the same 3x's surge yet Uber is simply pocketing the money instead of using it to incentivize drivers to go online.


----------



## RaleighNick

tomatopaste said:


> The only suggestion, don't make it about drivers. Explain how pax are paying the same 3x's surge yet Uber is simply pocketing the money instead of using it to incentivize drivers to go online.


Good point. Americans love consumers and hate workers.


----------



## Matty760

Once Uber and Lyft remember or realize again that their customers are the drivers and not the pax then things can get better. Uber and lyft were originally a tech company right making a app for drivers to be connected to passengers and the companies were just the payment processor. They were the middle man. Now they have taken it as they are the main company and the passengers are their customer and the drivers are just the slave labor. I really hope they remember that without the drivers they won't have any passengers to overcharge. The drivers are what make Uber and Lyft money.


----------



## K-pax

JMlyftuber said:


> I can only speak for the Lyft system, I don't know if Uber's test works the same but with Lyft you need to be located in a certain zone to get a bonus ranging from $4.50 to $16. Mine average $10. Once you see the bonus it will be there for ~15 min. It's based on your location not pax. Because I rarely see a surge >2x and most trips here are <5 miles the Lyft system is better for the driver. I wait about 30 minutes to get a request and gross $15, with a surge I could get ~$18 if I got 3 surge rides in one hour, but I would put a lot more mileage into it.
> Obviously this is extremely market dependent, and regardless of which is better for the driver, charging passenger the higher rate while paying the driver on the lower rate is purely despicable.
> 
> Agreed. The app works just fine. They could only maintain a bugfix team for security purposes and app development would cost very little. They like to constantly change the app because it gives the appearance of doing lots of costly work while costing many multiples less than a significant increase in minimum earnings would cost.
> 
> The insurance is really the only thing besides driver pay I want them to keep putting big money into.


Waiting 30 min for a $15 ride is ... good?


----------



## JMlyftuber

K-pax said:


> Waiting 30 min for a $15 ride is ... good?


There's at least $15 gross in the hour and the waiting doesn't burn gas so isn't detracting from the gross. How long does it take you to gross $15, how many miles do you drive to do it, and what is your base rate? I don't disbelieve you're doing better but if you are I bet it's in a different market.


----------



## roadman

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


People still drive for uber? I wonder why you don't even make minimum wage.


----------



## K-pax

JMlyftuber said:


> There's at least $15 gross in the hour and the waiting doesn't burn gas so isn't detracting from the gross. How long does it take you to gross $15, how many miles do you drive to do it, and what is your base rate? I don't disbelieve you're doing better but if you are I bet it's in a different market.


In our market a base rate average is around $20-$25/hr on the low tier. If it's busy, it can get around $30/hr and surge helps more. Keep in mind, Seattle min wage is $15/hr. If your gross for an hour was $15, you'd be making less than someone at McDonalds. Sitting around for a $15 fare would be considered really slow even at base rates (a lot of people would just go home if that's all there was out there). Recently, Lyft sent out an email to some local drivers about this new PT/Surge so it is pretty relevant to our market.


----------



## Uber Annie

https://www.whio.com/news/uber-decr...e-cap-passed-honolulu/QwCiOJNBUkaTKR3cFPdUuO/

*Uber decries ride-hailing price cap passed in Honolulu*


----------



## Uberxxxuk

RedSteel said:


> It appears we are all about to get bent over HARD and Uber will be lining their pockets with money that used to go to us
> 
> They implemented a new Surge policy as a test in Charlotte NC and now have moved it to 5 other cities to expand the test. The rumor is it is going nationwide late August early September.
> 
> The gist of it they are getting rid of the Multiplier for the drivers and going to a flat dollar rate. You drive into the surge area and your next ride to get the highest dollar rate applied to your next ride......but ONLY IF
> 
> Your app was online
> You dont reject a ride
> You don't go offline
> You don't change your ride preferences
> You dont cancel a ride
> 
> If you do any of those things you don't get the surge bonus
> 
> It seems the best you can really get is a 10-15 dollar bonus added on......but most of the time is is a lot less. So gone will be the days of the 4.0x surge....X or XL ride for 17 minutes that got you 35 bucks. Now you will get your normal fare plus maybe 5 bucks
> 
> It will KILL the late night bar scene.... no more medium distance surge rides that make your night. New Years Eve is destroyed..... Event Surges are ruined
> 
> But here is the REAL KICKER (as if this wasn't bad enough)
> 
> Uber is only changing it for us drivers
> 
> The are still charging the normal multiplier for the Pax and pocketing all the extra for themselves
> 
> So most of the time when your doing a surge ride, uber will be making MORE per ride then you will be.....some times the split will be reversed with Uber getting 75% to your 25%
> 
> Look at the Charlotte city forum for mind melting horrible examples
> 
> They are literally reaching into our pockets and stealing money from us now. They are giving us no incentive to stay out for the bar scene because we would simply be working for them.... not ourselves.
> 
> Forget service dogs....payday loans.... cleaning tips
> 
> This should be the #1 subject on the agenda going forward..... we are about to get really screwed


They can't do it in London because the taxi business runs by TFL and they won't let it happen and if uber will do it they will get banned from UK and tbh with you I don't mind if uber get banned because the fares was a lot higher before uber and it will go back to it old price soonest they get banned and I work for uber but I kind of wish uber will get banned for what they are doing to some drivers and they forgot the drivers who made uber not uber made the drivers especially in London we had the private hire before uber comes to the market and it will be here even if uber gets banned which I wish for.


----------

