# Uber Driver Agreement updated JAN 2022: defines that Drivers Pay Uber



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity: 
'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
Uber doesn't pay drivers...
*Drivers pay Uber for access to the driver app.*.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
*Uber Driver Agreement*
Platform Access Agreement Updated as of January 1, 2022 

1. *Relationship with Uber* 
1.1. Contracting Parties. 

The relationship between the parties is solely as independent business enterprises, each of whom operates a separate and distinct business enterprise that provides a service outside the usual course of business of the other. 

This is not an employment agreement and you are not an employee. 

You confirm the existence and nature of that contractual relationship each time you access our Platform. 

*We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service; 
You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform*. 

Nothing in this Agreement creates, will create, or is intended to create, any employment, partnership, joint venture, franchise or sales representative relationship between you and us. The parties do not share in any profits or losses. You have no authority to make or accept any offers or representations on our behalf. *You are not our agent and you have no authority to act on behalf of Uber. *


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Then we need to 1099 Uber at the end of the year for the fees we paid them?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> Then we need to 1099 Uber at the end of the year for the fees we paid them?


You could - but their corporate tax reporting already covers that.
(A 1099 is generally issued to individuals so as to document the payment and the revenue. Corporations already report those revenues in their quarterly tax filings and financial reports)


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Good spotting Michael.


----------



## #1husler (Aug 22, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity:
> 'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
> The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
> Uber doesn't pay drivers...
> ...


with raising cost of gas...soon ants will be paying Fuber more than they make...


----------



## Frontier Guy (Dec 27, 2015)

And yet, Uber makes the rules we operate by, and if we don’t like it, they “fire “ us.


----------



## Frontier Guy (Dec 27, 2015)

Oh, and they are being overcompensated for the services they provide


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

You didn’t know before now that DRIVERS are Uber’s customer, not the pax?

We essentially pay them fees out of a pax’s fare, for us to use their technology that connects us with our customers - the pax - and processes the payments for us.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> You didn’t know before now that DRIVERS are Uber’s customer, not the pax?
> 
> We essentially pay them fees out of a pax’s fare, for us to use their technology that connects us with our customers - the pax - and processes the payments for us.


The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers. 

Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.

I've yet to see any contract reference to the drivers being "customers", nor any reference to drivers "paying" Uber anything.

Good luck trying to find financial talking heads or anyone else in the world of business who has ever referred to the drivers as Uber's customers. I strongly doubt any of them buy into that classification.

It's pure BS.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Frontier Guy said:


> And yet, Uber makes the rules we operate by, and if we don’t like it, they “fire “ us.


If we don't like it, then we don't have to accept the work offer. 
If we accept the work and do not perform the work to the standards we agreed to, then they do not supply us with any more offers of work. 

That's not being 'fired' - that's being an independent contractor. 
And it's not for everyone... 

So, anyone who doesn't like it (and why should anyone 'like' being exploited?) can go get a job or another gig.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers.
> 
> Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.
> 
> I've yet to see any contract reference to the drivers being "customers", nor any reference to drivers "paying" Uber anything.


1. The Uber Driver Agreement has ALWAYS said, in one way or another, that driver's PAY Uber for access to the Uber platform. The quote in the thread starter I posted here says it most succinctly:
*"We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service; You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform*." 

Back in Kalanick's day, Uber called drivers "Driver Partners" (!! lol !!) If you have never seen the language that describes how drivers pay Uber for access to the app and that the relationship between the rider and the driver is a "direct" one with Uber acting as a "third party payor" then you have never read an Uber Driver Agreement. 

2. The SEC has nothing to do with "classifying" workers, employees, drivers, partners or customers or anything else.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers.
> 
> Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.
> 
> ...


Be mad all you want, but this is most definitely the legal relationship they have with us. Like it or not. That’s how it is.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Be mad all you want, but this is most definitely the legal relationship they have with us. Like it or not. That’s how it is.


This isn't about being "mad", it's about pointing out the buck naked emperor has no clothes despite his repeated claims to the contrary.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity:
> 'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
> The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
> Uber doesn't pay drivers...
> ...


That’s how it always was but Uber’s lawyers tried to get too fancy which just muddied the waters.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 1. The Uber Driver Agreement has ALWAYS said, in one way or another, that driver's PAY Uber for access to the Uber platform. The quote in the thread starter I posted here says it most succinctly:
> *"We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service; You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform*."
> 
> Back in Kalanick's day, Uber called drivers "Driver Partners" (!! lol !!) If you have never seen the language that describes how drivers pay Uber for access to the app and that the relationship between the rider and the driver is a "direct" one with Uber acting as a "third party payor" then you have never read an Uber Driver Agreement.
> ...


Partners. Hahaha!!


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 2. The SEC has nothing to do with "classifying" workers, employees, drivers, partners or customers or anything else.


The SEC is the agency that's empowered to approve or disapprove the terms of IPOs. If the SEC had said no, Uber wouldn't have been able to include that term in the IPO. The actual classification of workers is not handled by the SEC.

The term "engaged" means entering into an arrangement with another party, period. That arrangement COULD be as a customer but it could also have nothing whatsoever to do with being a customer.

I've read every version of the contract and nowhere has Uber ever stated drivers pay them. If such a clause exists, post a screenshot of it.

Uber has always deliberately made their contracts vague. The reason the contract has never referred to drivers as customers or "paying" Uber for services rendered is that to do so would open a major can of worms as far as consumer protection law, consumer lawsuits, and even civil rights laws.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> This isn't about being "mad", it's about pointing out the buck naked emperor has no clothes despite his repeated claims to the contrary.


It doesn’t matter that it’s all legalese BS. All that matters is that this is the “driver partner” relationship.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> It doesn’t matter that it’s all legalese BS. All that matters is that this is the “driver partner” relationship.


I've said on many occasions that our relationship with these gig companies as well as the gig economy itself is built on lies. The same applies to the entire "independent contractor" employment model.

The entire system is long overdue for major reform.


----------



## NauticalWheeler (Jun 15, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> I've said on many occasions that our relationship with these gig companies as well as the gig economy itself is built on lies. The same applies to the entire "independent contractor" employment model.
> 
> The entire system is long overdue for major reform.


Rideshare workers of the world, UNITE!


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

Uber and Lyft have had similar verbiage for some time. It's all rather nonsense. However Uber and Lyft conduct themselves is immaterial to how they define things in an adhesion contract. It may be more mind games on the part of Uber to make the signors doubt their ability to bring a case - not necessarily fool a court (or arbiter) that we're contractors that pay Uber to use its software.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> The actual classification of workers is not handled by the SEC.


That's correct.


> *I've read every version of the contract and nowhere has Uber ever stated drivers pay them. If such a clause exists, post a screenshot of it.*


As you wish.
Section 4.4 of the 2015 Uber Driver Agreement:


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are engaging us to provide you access to our platform.


Nah, not buying it. If that were true then Uber wouldn't talk about and threaten drivers with "deactivation"; they would talk about "refusing to provide service" to drivers.

No, the description I prefer is, "We will engage you in a pseudo-independent contractor relationship which will have many features of employment including close supervision and monitoring of your activities and the ability to reprimand you and suspend you, but without any of the corresponding benefits of employment".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I agree - the whole point of the model is to be able use marketing incentives (ie: BS... or as we've come to know it, "Uberese") to get drivers to do what the company wants us to do (ie: manipulate the labor force)... 

But the legal definition of the relationship that enables Uber to avoid employer responsibility is dependent on the contract language of '_you engage Uber - we do not hire you_', now backed up by putting control of which rides a driver accepts/rejects in the hands of the driver. 

This is Dara K's fait accompli... defining *an IC relationship with drivers that can be justified in a court of law* so as to avoid the employer responsibilities & requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (overtime, minimum wage, unemployment insurance) and federal & state labor laws (requiring workers compensation, health care, etc.)

It is a blow to those drivers who want to be employees of Uber and it is a total 'win' for drivers who want to remain independent contractors.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> I've said on many occasions that our relationship with these gig companies as well as the gig economy itself is built on lies. The same applies to the entire "independent contractor" employment model.
> 
> The entire system is long overdue for major reform.


I've said the same - right here - for 7 years.

/rant-on

The system for gig enterprises and workers has never been established in law. Congress has been kicking the can down the road for a decade, refusing to do its job of writing governing law so that the Dep't of Labor and the IRS can create regulations that reign in the abuses being perpetrated via the exploitation of labor by corporations. 

The FLSA needs to be amended to include a new classification of protected worker: Independent Employee or Employee Contractor or whatever they want to call it. Allowing corporations to skirt labor laws by calling their labor force an army of independent contractors is an obscene way to exploit the most vulnerable workers in our country.

/rant-off


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I've said the same - right here - for 7 years.
> 
> /rant-on
> 
> ...


A lot of people don’t seem to understand all of this. They let their emotions run high and get all mad and say stuff like, “That’s all BS! We’re employees!”

That’s all fine and dandy to believe in that principal, and on the surface it does seem like the way we are treated in a lot of ways makes us more employees than not. And I agree with that, but legally we are not employees. Legally we are IC’s. Legally we contract Uber to let us use their technology, and we pay fees to do so. Legally, they can deny us access (deactivated) to their technology under their terms. Legally, Uber doesn’t have to give us any recourse or ability to regain access.

If people disagree with any of this, all they have to do is opt out of binding arbitration, and then sue. And don’t just sue and settle (which so far everyone has done who successfully sued). You must sue and win judgement in court against Uber and set that legal precedent. OR, come up with enough money to lobby enough politicians to take up this cross and get laws passed to fix this.

Until then, everyone is just blowing emotional smoke while they tap accept on their next trip.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberChiefPIT said:


> If people disagree with any of this, all they have to do is opt out of binding arbitration...


I suspect that most (as in, like 95%+) drivers have no idea they have only 30 days from signing up to drive to opt-out of the arbitration clause. : (


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's correct.
> 
> As you wish.
> Section 4.4 of the 2015 Uber Driver Agreement:
> View attachment 643665











Uber: We don’t have to pay drivers based on rider fares


Contracts allow rider fares to be higher than what is known and paid to drivers.




arstechnica.com





That's a 2015 contract. I started in 2017. When I get a chance I'm gonna check and see which subsequent versions of the contract if any state that drivers pay Uber a service fee.

On the other hand, despite Uber's IPO prospectus, Uber's contracts have never referred to drivers as "customers". If the contract used that term, Uber's relationship with their drivers could possibly fall under the jurisdiction of various federal and state consumer protection agencies. They'd also be subject to civil rights laws. (Technically ICs are not protected by civil rights laws but Uber knows the govt would go after them in some other way if they were caught engaging in discrimination against the drivers).

NOBODY, (meaning the overwhelming consensus of humans) buys into any of this "Uber is a Paypal service for the drivers" BS (aka collecting and passing along pax fares for a fee). The same applies to Uber's denial of being a transportation company.

It's a good bet that I were to dig hard enough, I could find examples of Dara and/or other Uber execs slipping off point by making comments that contradict the lies in their contracts.

Emperor Uber (as well as the rest of the gig companies) have been buck naked since day one but thanks to the incompetence, laziness, political ideology, and corruption of our govt, they've been able to get away with telling everyone they're clothed.

Hopefully that'll finally come to an end.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Uber: We don’t have to pay drivers based on rider fares
> 
> 
> Contracts allow rider fares to be higher than what is known and paid to drivers.
> ...


LMBO!

They didn't change from having us as customers in 2015, to having us as employees in 2017, then back to having us as customers in 2022.

You're so stubborn, dude. You agreed to the same thing.

Now tell us more about how a 5.3%increase in NYC made their COL better than drivers in FL. I'm eager to hear you explain that one more.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I've said the same - right here - for 7 years.
> 
> /rant-on
> 
> ...


I'm opposed to the creation of a new worker category. The fact that Dara and Zimmer have expressed support for a new worker classification should cause alarm bells to go off.

Instead, the entire independent contractor business model needs a complete overhaul. The rules should be clear and concise with zero vagueness. There should be an an easy to understand "checklist" of requirements that need to be met before workers can be classified as ICs. For every item on the list that isn't met by the company, they would be required to pay a hefty penalty.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> LMBO!
> 
> They didn't change from having us as customers in 2015, to having us as employees in 2017, then back to having us as customers in 2022.
> 
> ...


Bullshit.

Uber has never referred to us as customers in any contract.

Your lame attempt at strawman by throwing in the word "employee" doesn't wash either.

As far as the 5.3%, my points stand.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Uber has never referred to us as customers in any contract.
> 
> ...


They don’t have to use the word “customer” for us to be their customer. We just are by nature of how the arrangement works. We pay them in order to use their technology.

They don’t call us “employees”, either, but you’re somehow convinced that we are. LOL

Let me guess: visitors to Disney World aren’t customers, either, because Disney calls them “guests”, and workers there aren’t employees because Disney calls them “cast members”, right?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> They don’t have to use the word “customer” for us to be their customer. We just are by nature of how the arrangement works. We pay them in order to use their technology.
> 
> They don’t call us “employees”, either, but you’re somehow convinced that we are. LOL
> 
> Let me guess: visitors to Disney World aren’t customers, either, because Disney calls them “guests”, and workers there aren’t employees because Disney calls them “cast members”, right?


They don't have to use the word "customer" for us to be customers, but they could have and chose not to.

Every syllable and punctuation point of their contract was gone over with a fine-toothed comb by their attorneys. If they wanted to declare the drivers as their customers they'd have done so. Of course contract clauses can be legal or illegal.

As far as "by nature" and "paying them for their technology" are concerned, that's your opinion only (assuming you're telling the truth about buying into it).

Considering how definitive you are about our alleged status as customers purchasing the use of their technology, it's rather curious that given the severe financial threat employee status poses to these gig companies that none of the honchos from the gig companies have ever tried to use a "customer defense" to prevent employee status. If drivers are their customers they can't be their employees. They be off the employee-status hook.

I have no doubt that in most ways we're employees. Whether or not Uber's contract states that is legally irrelevant. The govt has the final say on that matter.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

UberChiefPIT said:


> They don’t have to use the word “customer” for us to be their customer. We just are by nature of how the arrangement works. We pay them in order to use their technology.
> 
> They don’t call us “employees”, either, but you’re somehow convinced that we are. LOL
> 
> Let me guess: visitors to Disney World aren’t customers, either, because Disney calls them “guests”, and workers there aren’t employees because Disney calls them “cast members”, right?


You are just embarrassing yourself trying to solidify the meaning of Uber's legal mumbo jumbo nonsense. At the the end of the day they can update the legal terms a hundred times a day but if it is built off of questionable legal tactics it's meaningless. They can say or do whatever they want (which they have in the past) but a court of law will always have the final say of the legalization of such tactics.

Good luck convincing the court that your driver's pay you for access to the platform but your the one who offers the promos that you will pay the driver if he or she completes "X" amount of trips and you decide the pay rate. You decide what the cleaning fee reimbursement fee will be even though it could be more or less than the actual damage. Let Uber play whatever meaningless games they want to play.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Uber: We don’t have to pay drivers based on rider fares
> 
> 
> Contracts allow rider fares to be higher than what is known and paid to drivers.
> ...


If any? You asked for a screenshot - posted it. I didn't write it - Uber did... and that language persists from day one.



> Uber's contracts have never referred to drivers as "customers".


Now you're just denying what it is in black & white.



> If the contract used that term, Uber's relationship with their drivers could possibly fall under the jurisdiction of various federal and state consumer protection agencies.


That's correct - and partly the reason Uber and Lyft have written the laws passed (as of June 2017) in *48 states and the District of Columbia* governing TNCs. Maybe you don't remember, but in 2015, 2016 & 2017, many local municipalities tried to regulate the TNCs - Uber & Lyft stepped in hiring attorneys to write legislation to be implemented in each state that would prevent local governments from regulating the TNCs.



> NOBODY, (meaning the overwhelming consensus of humans) buys into any of this "Uber is a Paypal service for the drivers" BS (aka collecting and passing along pax fares for a fee). The same applies to Uber's denial of being a transportation company.


You're speaking for all humans now, which is pretty funny to begin with - but you are also ignoring court rulings that even if only on appeal, have upheld the Uber Driver Agreement as legally binding - *which includes the legal definition of drivers paying Uber for access to the platform* and not working for the company, but having a direct relationship with the rider.



> It's a good bet that I were to dig hard enough, I could find examples of Dara and/or other Uber execs slipping off point by making comments that contradict the lies in their contracts.


So what? Comments are not legally binding. Contracts are.
We all know what the intent is and what the reality is...
but until it can be determined otherwise in a court of law, the definition as stated in the agreements is what it is:* Drivers Pay Uber*.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's correct - and partly the reason Uber and Lyft have written the laws passed (as of June 2017) in *48 states and the District of Columbia* governing TNCs. Maybe you don't remember, but in 2015, 2016 & 2017, many local municipalities tried to regulate the TNCs - Uber & Lyft stepped in hiring attorneys to write legislation to be implemented in each state that would prevent local governments from regulating the TNCs.


Where's the "black and white" in Uber's contract that states we're their "customers".

The attempts to regulate Uber were based on the claim that they were running an illegal taxi service. "Customer" status for drivers is an entirely different matter.

As I said in another post, if drivers are their customers they can't be their employees, yet Dara has never tried to use that as a defense against employee status. They'd be off the hook.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> They don't have to use the word "customer" for us to be customers, but they could have and chose not to.


They choose not to, for the same reason Disney calls them “guests”, not customers.



> As far as "by nature" and "paying them for their technology" are concerned, that's your opinion only (assuming you're telling the truth about buying into it).


You’re just being belligerent at this point. It says it right here in the agreement you signed: we pay them fees for using their technology.




















WE are paying them fees to use their technology services to benefit our own company.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Where's the "black and white" in Uber's contract that states we're their "customers".
> 
> The attempts to regulate Uber were based on the claim that they were running an illegal taxi service. "Customer" status for drivers is an entirely different matter.
> 
> As I said in another post, if drivers are their customers they can't be their employees, yet Dara has never tried to use that as a defense against employee status. They'd be off the hook.


He doesn’t have to use it as a defense for anything, because no one has ever challenged the legality of it.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> They choose not to, for the same reason Disney calls them “guests”, not customers.
> 
> 
> You’re just being belligerent at this point. It says it right here in the agreement you signed: we pay them fees for using their technology.
> ...


You dragged up an unrelated thread from days ago and used the term "stubborn" and I'm the one who's being "belligerent"? LOL.

I see the text but I'm not totally convinced you buy into it.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> You dragged up an unrelated thread from days ago and used the term "stubborn" and I'm the one who's being "belligerent"? LOL.
> 
> I see the text but I'm not totally convinced you buy into it.


I brought it up because I found it ironic that you somehow trust Uber is giving NYC a fair deal with a 5.3% increase, but distrust the legal documents from Uber that you yourself signed (obviously without reading).


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> He doesn’t have to use it as a defense for anything, because no one has ever challenged the legality of it.


Of course he doesn't have to use it as a defense but he'd be industrial strength stupid not to if it could get Uber off the hook. 

Seeing that he's not a stupid man and that he has an army of lawyers going thru every loophole they can find, they concluded that any attempt to hide behind such a dubious claim as customer status would fail miserably and probably backfire against Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Good luck convincing the court that your driver's pay you for access to the platform but your the one who offers the promos that you will pay the driver if he or she completes "X" amount of trips and you decide the pay rate. You decide what the cleaning fee reimbursement fee will be even though it could be more or less than the actual damage. Let Uber play whatever meaningless games they want to play.


No idea what you point you're trying to make -but US Federal Court after US Federal Appeals Court (CA 9th Circuit) has upheld the Uber Driver Agreement model of having drivers, as independent business people, pay Uber Technologies for access to the Uber platform (app).


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> I brought it up because I found it ironic that you somehow trust Uber is giving NYC a fair deal with a 5.3% increase, but distrust the legal documents from Uber that you yourself signed (obviously without reading).


I never called it "fair deal", period. I said just the opposite. I said it's not enough.

If you can't be honest there's no point responding to your posts.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Of course he doesn't have to use it as a defense but he'd be industrial strength stupid not to if it could get Uber off the hook.


They’re not on the hook for anything. Someone has to sue first, and get to AT LEAST the discovery phase of the process, before this even becomes something to consider.

And nobody has. The worst thing someone can do for themselves in a legal proceeding is say more than necessary, or even anything at all when it’s not necessary.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> ...any attempt to hide behind such a dubious claim as customer status would fail miserably and probably backfire against Uber.


Interesting that faced with the proof that *drivers, under the law, pay Uber for access to the app* (as opposed to uber paying drivers to sign up to use the app), you are now using the term 'customer' as if it had some legal meaning.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> I never called it "fair deal", period. I said just the opposite. I said it's not enough.
> 
> If you can't be honest there's no point responding to your posts.


Oh, are we waxing words again?

You said for that amount, you’d have no problem doing drive thru delivery or waiting on pax at Wal Mart.

It’s not “a fair deal”, but you’d still enjoy doing it. Tell me, how is this any different? LOL


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> They’re not on the hook for anything. Someone has to sue first, and get to AT LEAST the discovery phase of the process, before this even becomes something to consider.
> 
> And nobody has. The worst thing someone can do for themselves in a legal proceeding is say more than necessary, or even anything at all when it’s not necessary.


Of course they're on the hook. They've been on the hook since day one.

The sword of Damocles employee-status has been hanging over their head since they started. Dara had to reassure the investors that Uber can handle employee status if it occurs. The gig companies have spoken in apocalyptic terms about the threat of employee status

AB5 passed. Other states are working on legislation right now. The feds are threatening.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Of course they're on the hook. They've been on the hook since day one.
> 
> The sword of Damocles employee-status has been hanging over their head since they started. Dara had to reassure the investors that Uber can handle employee status if it occurs. The gig companies have spoken in apocalyptic terms about the threat of employee status
> 
> AB5 passed. Other states are working on legislation right now. The feds are threatening.


Yes yes yes. We’ve heard this sort of rhetoric before. Like, for 4 years straight how it was “Mueller Time!” and all the indictments are right around the corner. 🙄

No one is “on the hook” for anything until someone puts up the right legal challenge.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Oh, are we waxing words again?
> 
> You said for that amount, you’d have no problem doing drive thru delivery or waiting on pax at Wal Mart.
> 
> It’s not “a fair deal”, but you’d still enjoy doing it. Tell me, how is this any different? LOL


I said I'd be satisfied with 53 cents per minute and I still feel that way. On more than one occasion I've said the per mile rate is too low.

I also said that given the rising cost of living and the rapidly rising gas prices that 5.3 percent isn't enough of an increase, and I still feel that way.

You took my comments out of context by selectively leaving out the part where I said a 5.3% increase isn't enough given the fact that it's below the inflation rate.

I never called that 5.3% increase a "fair deal".


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> I said I'd be satisfied with 53 cents per minute and I still feel that way. On more than one occasion I've said the per mile rate is too low.
> 
> I also said that given the rising cost of living and the rapidly rising gas prices that 5.3 percent isn't enough of an increase, and I still feel that way.
> 
> ...


You’re satisfied, but it’s not fair?

Now do you see the irony here?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Interesting that faced with the proof that *drivers, under the law, pay Uber for access to the app* (as opposed to uber paying drivers to sign up to use the app), you are now using the term 'customer' as if it had some legal meaning.


First of all, your claim of "proof" is false. That's YOUR interpretation. That doesn't constitute "proof".

Given the enormous control Uber has over the entire operation including the drivers, a much stronger case could be made that Uber is paying the drivers, not the other way around.

As far as legal meaning for the term "customer", it's as if you're responding to someone else's posts.

I've said repeatedly in thread that just because something's in a contract doesn't make it legal. That would include any contract clause that declares the classification of drivers.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> I've said repeatedly in thread that just because something's in a contract doesn't make it legal. That would include any contract clause that declares the classification of drivers.


Its 100% legal until ruled otherwise in a court of law, or a law is passed making it illegal. So far, neither of these have happened, and the 9th “Circus” has even established that it is, in fact, legal.

You’re just blowing emotional smoke.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> You’re satisfied, but it’s not fair?
> 
> Now do you see the irony here?


There's no irony except that in your mind.

The declared reason by the mayor for the increase was inflation which at more than 7% is higher than the increase. Given the reason for the increase , it should have been at least as high as the inflation rate, thus it's too low.

I've stated that on multiple occasions.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Where's the "black and white" in Uber's contract that states we're their "customers".
> 
> The attempts to regulate Uber were based on the claim that they were running an illegal taxi service. "Customer" status for drivers is an entirely different matter.
> 
> As I said in another post, if drivers are their customers they can't be their employees, yet Dara has never tried to use that as a defense against employee status. They'd be off the hook.


You are the only one using the term 'customer' - 
and you are only using it now because you swore up and down that there was never any language in the driver agreement saying that *drivers pay uber for access to the app*. 
You were wrong, 
You asked me to post a screenshot as proof.
I did - and* it dates back to 2015 and earlier and has continued on in every driver agreement since* (including the current agreement dated Jan 2022). 
And now you're denying that's the case? lol!

BTW, here's the definition of the word you are now turning to:
* cus·tom·er*
/ˈkəstəmər/
noun
1.
*a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business*.

Drivers Pay Uber for access to the Uber App. By definition, that means drivers are customers of Uber Technologies.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> There's no irony except that in your mind.
> 
> The declared reason by the mayor for the increase was inflation which at more than 7% is higher than the increase. Given the reason for the increase , it should have been at least as high as the inflation rate, thus it's too low.
> 
> I've stated that on multiple occasions.


You’re satisfied, but it’s still unfair.

Got it.

Now if you could only be equally satisfied that you agreed to the contractual terms with Uber (because you did agree to them), even though they’re unfair.

After all, it’s unfair, but you’re still satisfied. Your words.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Its 100% legal until ruled otherwise in a court of law, or a law is passed making it illegal. So far, neither of these have happened, and the 9th “Circus” has even established that it is, in fact, legal.
> 
> You’re just blowing emotional smoke.


You're flatout wrong. Contracts can and do have illegal clauses all the time. Uber's contract could include a clause that I sacrifice my son. It could have racially discriminatory clauses. Last time I checked both of those things are illegal and thus unenforceable.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> First of all, your claim of "proof" is false. That's YOUR interpretation. That doesn't constitute "proof".
> 
> Given the enormous control Uber has over the entire operation including the drivers, a much stronger case could be made that Uber is paying the drivers, not the other way around.
> 
> ...


In. Your. Dreams.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are the only one using the term 'customer' -
> and you are only using it now because you swore up and down that there was never any language in the driver agreement saying that *drivers pay uber for access to the app*.
> You were wrong,
> You asked me to post a screenshot as proof.
> ...


You keep bringing up the fact that I erred about clause 4.4 in an attempt to bolster your arguments but if you want to do that I can do the same thing. I'm sure you made errors in your posts over the years that can be dragged up to try to discredit your arguments about other things.

Again, "paying Uber" is YOUR interpretation. I've already stated that it can be viewed the other way around and it is by the vast majority of drivers as well as the govt and the public.

Over the years whenever the topic of driver pay comes up and there are complaints and protests, they don't say "reduce the prices you're charging us", they say "raise driver pay" or "raise the pay rates".

In recent years there's been zillions of complaints about Uber's "cut" being too large, but even among those people virtually none of them view themselves as "customers paying Uber for a service". They view it as Uber taking too large of a "commission". Make no mistake about it, if you're paying a person or entity for services rendered, you are their customer, period.

Our entire business relationship with Uber is a lie. We're their employees. Just like bus drivers, airline pilots, hamburger flippers, and other workers, we don't enter the picture until AFTER Uber has organized, marketed, sold, and arranged the logistics of every trip. Then and only then do we enter the picture when Uber fetches one of us with their app.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You keep bringing up the fact that I erred about clause 4.4 in an attempt to bolster your arguments


I've never once said you erred about 4.4.
I also have never made an argument about 4.4.
I have not interpreted it or opined about; I QUOTED it:
_"*In consideration of Company’s provision of the Driver App and the Uber Services for your use and benefit hereunder, you agree to pay Company...*"_

That's not an interpretation or an opinion.
That is fact.
You can call the sky any color you want - that doesn't change reality.

And it's not just 4.4... look at 4.1 that clearly states that the drivers charges the rider a "fare" and then 4.4 which states that the driver charges Uber a service fee:

4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment.
*You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare").*_.._

And right there in the definitions that precede the Uber Driver Agreement, the contract defines that drivers are, in fact, "customers". lol - and you said, over and over that Uber never called drivers customers - yet there it is:

1.14 *"User" means an end user authorized by Uber to use the Uber mobile application for the purpose of obtaining Transportation Services offered by Company’s transportation provider customers*.









Another Uber Driver Awarded Unemployment Benefits


The title of this thread caught me off guard. For a minute, I thought Another Uber Driver had been awarded unemployment benefits.




www.uberpeople.net


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You're flatout wrong. Contracts can and do have illegal clauses all the time. Uber's contract could include a clause that I sacrifice my son. It could have racially discriminatory clauses. Last time I checked both of those things are illegal and thus unenforceable.


LOL... there aren't many contracts that have been litigated more than Uber's Driver Agreement. 

You are right in that anyone can put anything in a contract - but you are mistaken if you think that the Uber Driver Agreement hasn't been challenged and adjudicated in state and federal courts.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No idea what you point you're trying to make -but US Federal Court after US Federal Appeals Court (CA 9th Circuit) has upheld the Uber Driver Agreement model of having drivers, as independent business people, pay Uber Technologies for access to the Uber platform (app).


They said we were independent contractors from day one too and how many times has that been challenged and subject to change on a state by state basis? Some countries have classified drivers as employees. The point is the language can say whatever the hell they want it to say but if your smart you'd take it with a grain of salt. Legal today, illegal tomorrow, or vice versa. Can't believe anyone is still driving for this merciless company with so many better paying jobs available nationwide.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> They said we were independent contractors from day one too and how many times has that been challenged and subject to change on a state by state basis? Some countries have classified drivers as employees. The point is the language can say whatever the hell they want it to say but if your smart you'd take it with a grain of salt. Legal today, illegal tomorrow, or vice versa. Can't believe anyone is still driving for this merciless company with so many better paying jobs available nationwide.


Just because it was challenged doesn't mean it was shot down. 
*48 of 50 states and the District of Columbia now have state laws on the books that define drivers TNC drivers as independent contractors*.

The point is - what you call something doesn't matter. It is the legal definition (not the perception) that matters - and in the eyes of the law, TNC drivers are independent business entities that pay Uber for access to the Uber platform. The income those entities derived from providing transportation services obtained through the lead generation of the Uber app is the Independent Businesses revenue, as generated by fares paid by the rider.

Yes, it's legal maneuvering.
It's all perfectly legal - and precisely how the TNCs operate.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> They said we were independent contractors from day one too and how many times has that been challenged and subject to change on a state by state basis?


Challenged? Many.
Subject to change? Zero - zilch.
TNC drivers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, have been, and remain, Independent Contractors.
In CA, while Prop 22 has been declared violating the state constitution by a lower court ( in a suit brought by the SEIU before Alameda County Superior Court), the higher Court (CA Supreme Court) has refused to hear a challenge to Prop 22. So, while there is still some uncertainty about the future, *in CA and all other states in the US, drivers remain Independent Contractors*. 








A Judge Declared California’s Gig Worker Law Unconstitutional. Now What?


The law, the result of a $200 million proposition fight last year, ensures that workers like Uber and Lyft drivers are considered independent contractors.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 1.14 *"User" means an end user authorized by Uber to use the Uber mobile application for the purpose of obtaining Transportation Services offered by Company’s transportation provider customers*.


BOOM! I knew someone would find it. Thank you!


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> LOL... there aren't many contracts that have been litigated more than Uber's Driver Agreement.
> 
> You are right in that anyone can put anything in a contract - but you are mistaken if you think that the Uber Driver Agreement hasn't been challenged and adjudicated in state and federal courts.


I kept trying to explain this to him, but he kept getting stuck in his own reality.

It doesn't matter if WE think something should be legal or illegal. In the eyes of the law, what matters is if it is actually deemed one or the other, by law.

And at present, law says it's perfectly legal. And so it is.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberChiefPIT said:


> You’re satisfied, but it’s not fair?
> 
> Now do you see the irony here?


You know I never used the words "fair" or "unfair" in regards to the 5.3% increase, so you're lying about it.

It's not enough of an increase but I wouldn't label it as unfair. Are saying it's unfair?

BTW, would YOU be satisfied with 53 cents per minute? You've been going on and on about the increase but you've been conveniently silent about whether 53 cents would be enough for you.


----------



## American Gig Economy (12 mo ago)

Nats121 said:


> I'm opposed to the creation of a new worker category. The fact that Dara and Zimmer have expressed support for a new worker classification should cause alarm bells to go off.
> 
> Instead, the entire independent contractor business model needs a complete overhaul. The rules should be clear and concise with zero vagueness. There should be an an easy to understand "checklist" of requirements that need to be met before workers can be classified as ICs. For every item on the list that isn't met by the company, they would be required to pay a hefty penalty.



Prop 22 was written by/for them, but the #FreelancersBILLofRIGHTS is by/for us. The FLSA will enforce our demands via a new 1099 freelancer classification. Sing the petiton and protest. Sign the Petition


----------



## American Gig Economy (12 mo ago)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I've said the same - right here - for 7 years.
> 
> /rant-on
> 
> ...


Except we don't need to bargain/beg the companies when the FLSA makes & enforces the proper demands that won't destroy flexibility or make it disadvantage competitors.


----------



## American Gig Economy (12 mo ago)

UberChiefPIT said:


> A lot of people don’t seem to understand all of this. They let their emotions run high and get all mad and say stuff like, “That’s all BS! We’re employees!”
> 
> That’s all fine and dandy to believe in that principal, and on the surface it does seem like the way we are treated in a lot of ways makes us more employees than not. And I agree with that, but legally we are not employees. Legally we are IC’s. Legally we contract Uber to let us use their technology, and we pay fees to do so. Legally, they can deny us access (deactivated) to their technology under their terms. Legally, Uber doesn’t have to give us any recourse or ability to regain access.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

> The FLSA will enforce our demands via a new 1099 freelancer classification


 the flsa has not been amended since 1968. Don't hold your breath. But please do advocate for it!


----------



## American Gig Economy (12 mo ago)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> the flsa has not been amended since 1968. Don't hold your breath. But please do advocate for it!


See my latest post? It's in the Activism forum


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

American Gig Economy said:


> See my latest post? It's in the Activism forum


It's the ADVOCACY forum not "Activism" forum.
(I should know, lol - I started it a bunch of years ago under the previous ownership and management of UP.net)

That top post there has nothing to do with the FLSA or government regulations - it's about "demanding" things from companies (not government). And its list of demands seems all over the place and focused on rideshare (even though other gig work companies are identified).

I do hope you can gain interest and support, and build momentum for positive change.

Best wishes to you!


----------



## uberlegaleze (8 mo ago)

Is there anyone who could upload a copy of the "contract" (Uber Driver Agreement) that Uber drivers must agree to when signing up?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

> >> *Our Service Fees* *In consideration for services connecting you to Riders and related services, including payment processing, you will pay us (and/or permit us to collect from the Rider Payment) a service fee (“Service Fee”).* For the avoidance of doubt, you will not be charged a fee to access our Platform. Unless we indicate to you otherwise, the Service Fee that will be charged to you on a per-Ride basis shall equal the Rider Payment (defined below) minus: (a) the Fare, (b) any gratuity, and (c) other items, including but not limited to, (i) Direct Fees, (ii) applicable estimated taxes, tolls, and surcharges, (iii) fees retained by us, and (iv) any other payments to you included on the per-trip receipt, which may include per-trip promotions ((a)-(c), collectively, “Service Fee Offsets”).<<<


----------



## montecristo (Aug 15, 2020)

UberChiefPIT said:


> I kept trying to explain this to him, but he kept getting stuck in his own reality.
> 
> It doesn't matter if WE think something should be legal or illegal. In the eyes of the law, what matters is if it is actually deemed one or the other, by law.
> 
> And at present, law says it's perfectly legal. And so it is.


So what you're saying is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case?


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

uberlegaleze said:


> Is there anyone who could upload a copy of the "contract" (Uber Driver Agreement) that Uber drivers must agree to when signing up?


The contract that I get in Florida is only good for Florida. The Uber Agreement varies by location.


----------

