# 🚫 Uber to Lyft: You can’t ride with us 🚫



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php
Rival ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft united to fight AB5, California's gig-work law that could force them to turn their drivers into employees. Now Uber wants to go its own way in its legal battle with California, which sued both companies in May to challenge their classification of drivers as independent contractors.

*&#128073; In court documents filed Wednesday, Uber says its case should be separated from Lyft's because Uber has changed how it does business, including letting drivers set their own fares. **Uber argued that those changes mean its drivers are truly independent.*

"Uber and Lyft are fundamentally different companies with different business models," Uber said in a filing in San Francisco Superior Court, noting there are no allegations that it acted in concert with Lyft. "Many of the general allegations asserted against both Uber and Lyft are simply false as to Uber." The rival companies are both headquartered in San Francisco.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, along with the city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, sued Uber and Lyft in May, saying they had misclassified drivers and deprived them of crucial labor rights and benefits. The government officials say the companies should pay hundreds of millions in back wages and civil penalties.

"Having the cases heard separately doesn't impact us," Lyft spokeswoman Julie Wood said. "We have all said from the beginning that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' when it comes to software platforms or business models in the (ride-hailing and delivery) world."

Becerra's office said it would not comment until it reviews the new filings.

"This is yet another desperate attempt by Uber to avoid treating its drivers fairly and following the law," said John Coté, spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Well they say that for now, until Uber finally decides to buy/merge with Lyft or a new parent company comes out and buys them both. Pandemic is hitting both companies hard. Of course they are going to fight making drivers employees.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

If only Uber would implement more of their CA policies nationwide. Uber has apparently made great strides to ensure that contractors have more information and choices which I applaud.

But, it seems they have to be threatened with employer status to make changes that make it so drivers can see something as simple as the ride details. I think Uber has an annoying fixation on algorithmic success so they hate anything that gives drivers choices. They wish all drivers were robots that accepted every ride on their algorithm so they could control results via algorithm alone instead of letting human nature play a role. Like many employers, little do they seem to understand that so long as their drivers are human, their happiness will falter when treated as mere cogs with zero autonomy. I personally think this desire to be overcontrolling costs them in terms of driver retention, motivation, happiness, etc., but they probably justify it in the name of using drivers to study self-driving car algorithms for their future models. Algorithms are great, but they should augment and take advantage of human nature, and not try to form humans into a mold meant for robots or their future self-driving cars.

Sadly, I predict the CA attempts to give drivers some control over their business is all short-lived. CA will ramrod them with Employer status despite their localized efforts since CA is run by the laboristas, and they will continue to treat contractors in other states like crap until they get ram-rodded with employer status by Congress.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

Show me an Employee level profession where You can decide to become Employed 
by downloading an app and then start working earning money
without HR & Supervisor oversight, 
without shift scheduling 
without employee Drug Testing and
Extensive background checks


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

i guess its too difficult to just regulated minimum fares & per mil min rates that must ne paid to drivers like puc has for almost a century for taxi cab companies


so dog & pony show as if any of them really care.

independent contractors have the rights to the details of their contracts among many other things uber lyft withold to deFRAUD labor into working for free or illegal wages which is the definition of labor(human) trafficking by the way...


----------



## bobby747 (Dec 29, 2015)

all this total b.s and not in 1 city a mod board to answer false accusations from anyone at any time..6 year driver...


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

33101sundevil said:


> *Uber argued that those changes mean its drivers are truly independent.*


So, reading between the lines, does this mean that, prior to making these changes, the drivers were not truly independent?



Trafficat said:


> But, it seems they have to be threatened with employer status to make changes that make it so drivers can see something as simple as the ride details.


Ride details can be problematic. I haven't seen this touched on anywhere, but in some locations destination discrimination is illegal. If you provide rides for money, it is illegal to deny somebody a ride based on their destination. This is true in New Jersey, and New Jersey usually gets their crazy law ideas from California, so I suspect it is probably true there as well. As it stands, it is difficult to accuse a driver of destination discrimination because the driver does not know the destination prior to accepting the ride request. Pretty much the only way you can do it now is if the driver asks the rider where he is going before starting the trip and then cancels the ride upon learning the destination. If drivers are given this information when they receive the ride request, it opens up a can of worms. Why give drivers information in the ride request that they are not legally allowed to use when making a decision on whether or not to accept the request?



Trafficat said:


> They wish all drivers were robots that accepted every ride on their algorithm...


Robots are exactly what they want. That is why they have spent a ton of money trying to develop them. In the absence of robots, though, they want drivers to be employees. They just don't want to pay legally mandated employee wages or provide legally mandated employee benefits. If Uber could truly have their way, there would be no such thing as accepting a ride. It wouldn't be an option. You wouldn't get requests from Uber; you would get instructions.

Go to this location. Pick up this person. Take him to the liquor store. Drop him off. Wait in the parking lot of the liquor store until he comes back out. Take him to the convenience store. Drop him off. Wait in the parking lot of the liquor store until he comes back out. Take him to this location. Drop him off. Drive to Wal-Mart. Pick up this person and load his groceries. Take him to this location.

Just instructions that you are to follow, not requests that you have the option of accepting or declining. That is what Uber would prefer, but there is absolutely no way that they can do that and still claim independent contractor status. So they try to walk the line of exerting as much control over you as they can while still maintaining independent contractor status in the eyes of the courts.



Trafficat said:


> ...little do they seem to understand that so long as their drivers are human, their happiness will falter when treated as mere cogs with zero autonomy.


No, they understand it perfectly. They flat out said in their IPO filing that they foresee driver discontent to continue to grow. They're not surprised by it. They predicted it.



Trafficat said:


> I personally think this desire to be overcontrolling costs them in terms of driver retention, motivation, happiness, etc.


They don't care about driver retention, motivation, or happiness. All they care about is having enough drivers available right now to shuttle around the passengers that are requesting rides right now without having to pay too much to the drivers. They don't need to retain drivers because for every 9 that quit, there are 10 signing up to take their place.



Trafficat said:


> CA will ramrod them with Employer status despite their localized efforts since CA is run by the laboristas, and they will continue to treat contractors in other states like crap until they get ram-rodded with employer status by Congress.


Ultimately, it comes down to this question. What is Uber's business? What do they do to make money? Everybody knows the answer to this. They sell rides to passengers. If you run a business that sells rides to passengers, then the people that provide those rides to the passengers are employees. Why? Because they are doing the work that earns you your money. They are doing work that is core to your business. That is why Uber clings so hard to the absurd idea that they don't sell rides to passengers. According to Uber's business model, they find people that want rides and then they sell the rider's information to a driver. So the passenger pays the driver for the ride and Uber charges the driver a fee for finding the rider and also a fee for processing the payments on the driver's behalf. At no point does the passenger ever pay any money to Uber. This is absurd. Uber sells rides to passengers, and Uber pays the drivers to provide those rides. That is what happens. Anybody that looks at it can see it, and the creative accounting doesn't make it not so.


----------



## bobby747 (Dec 29, 2015)

But, it seems they have to be threatened with employer status ..
Ride details can be problematic ..
charge us all .10 cents a ride, put up a board in every city..so if ********* say your drunk...you go right in and prove your not. 
or bad driving . bring you dash cam in rt away..i been at this a long time. i do not just xl. other type my van cost a ton.. $$ when buying it i thought i can and might get deactivated.. so i am ready at any time...


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

The cab company i drive for, they deal with accident investigations by sending out an experienced safety officer (who are all former insurance adjusters) to also handle the insurance claim and whatnot (the company self insures)

The reality is that if you have an insurance adjuster and Self insurance the investigator will be on YOUR side, and they will fight your side of the argument in an accident. Do you know WHY? Because if they lose the company is out the accident minus the deductible, but if they win they are out NOTHING.

You don't need a "BOARD" just someone to actually _investigate_ it.

Probably 3-4 times I've gotten "pull over" orders after a false accusation. (I pop my hood so people think I've broken down honestly) and they come along to pull the dash camera and or do a field sobriety test.

It sucks the big ones but I feel that it's an acceptable "investigation" of unsafe/under the influence allegations.

Frankly I know it's people trying to scam for a free ride but this is the world we live in. But honestly losing an hour or so to these allegations and having the company know it's a scam is much better than Uber/lyft "investigating" and getting a warning that if you get accused again your out.

"Dude you need to stop working the hood"
That's _honestly_ what i was told the last time i got a DUI accusation. Not "if it happens again your out" it was "Dude you need to stop working the hood".

I'm not saying uber needs shops in every city in America for dealing with this, what they need is accident investigators and self insuring would save them boatloads of money. (because that's reality)

When you have 100,000s of cars on the road your going to get accidents. Heck once you hit 100s on the road your going to have accidents, at that point insurance isn't really about risk management it's about taking responsibility for your idiots stupid mistakes.

Honestly if i was uber...

I'd make the "primary" business selling commercial insurance. There's money to be made there.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm not saying uber needs shops in every city in America for dealing with this, what they need is accident investigators and self insuring would save them boatloads of money. (because that's reality)


I've never understood why a company as big as Uber doesn't self insure. It would have to save them money over buying insurance. The only reason I can think of is that they don't trust themselves to keep the cash reserves on hand that would be necessary for self insurance.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'd make the "primary" business selling commercial insurance. There's money to be made there.


Yes, there is definitely a hole in the market that could be filled. The hole is commercial insurance for people that want to use their vehicles to generate income from time to time but don't want to be roped into making it a full-time job. Perhaps on a per mile basis? I've looked into full commercial insurance in the past, and all of the policies that I found were going to cost me about $5,000 per year. That might make sense if I were driving full time, but if I'm just driving occasionally on the weekends it eats up a significant portion of my profits for the year.


----------



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

33101sundevil said:


> Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
> July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php
> Rival ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft united to fight AB5, California's gig-work law that could force them to turn their drivers into employees. Now Uber wants to go its own way in its legal battle with California, which sued both companies in May to challenge their classification of drivers as independent contractors.
> ...


Not surprising. Uber has made changes in response to AB5 (no more up front fares, return of multiplier surge etc etc) which benefit drivers and cost Uber money. Lyft has done none of this and has just ignored AB5. So it's natural for Uber to see itself in a different and stronger position to fend off AB5 than Lyft, and it doesn't want Lyft riding on its coat tails. If I was Uber I'd tell Lyft to take a run and jump too.

It would be better if Lyft had played ball so both companies could present a united front, but of course common sense does not prevail.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> It would be better if Lyft had played ball


they are playing ball founding Prop 22 in Calif.

Paid for by Yes on 22 - Save App-Based Jobs & Services: a coalition of on-demand drivers and platforms, small businesses, public safety and community organizations. Committee major funding from Lyft, Uber Technologies, and DoorDash.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

33101sundevil said:


> Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
> July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php
> Rival ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft united to fight AB5, California's gig-work law that could force them to turn their drivers into employees. Now Uber wants to go its own way in its legal battle with California, which sued both companies in May to challenge their classification of drivers as independent contractors.
> ...


Good strategy.
2 Seperate Trials.
Will cost California TWICE AS MUCH.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Not surprising. Uber has made changes in response to AB5 (no more up front fares, return of multiplier surge etc etc) which benefit drivers and cost Uber money. Lyft has done none of this and has just ignored AB5. So it's natural for Uber to see itself in a different and stronger position to fend off AB5 than Lyft, and it doesn't want Lyft riding on its coat tails. If I was Uber I'd tell Lyft to take a run and jump too.
> 
> It would be better if Lyft had played ball so both companies could present a united front, but of course common sense does not prevail.


.A UNION WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO DRIVERS !


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> .A UNION WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO DRIVERS !


oh, that is quite funny. I mean, really funny. :roflmao:


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

tohunt4me said:


> Good strategy.
> 2 Seperate Trials.
> *Will cost California TWICE AS MUCH.*


"_Will cost California The Taxpayers TWICE AS MUCH"_
Fixed it


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

the attorneys in CA couldnt care less about rioting , looting, beatdowns in the street, tanking economy, forced lockdowns, but have all the time to sue to kill tens of thousands of flexible jobs.....CA is a dump


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> Ride details can be problematic. I haven't seen this touched on anywhere, but in some locations destination discrimination is illegal. If you provide rides for money, it is illegal to deny somebody a ride based on their destination. This is true in New Jersey, and New Jersey usually gets their crazy law ideas from California, so I suspect it is probably true there as well. As it stands, it is difficult to accuse a driver of destination discrimination because the driver does not know the destination prior to accepting the ride request. Pretty much the only way you can do it now is if the driver asks the rider where he is going before starting the trip and then cancels the ride upon learning the destination. If drivers are given this information when they receive the ride request, it opens up a can of worms. Why give drivers information in the ride request that they are not legally allowed to use when making a decision on whether or not to accept the request?


That is a good point but there has to be a middle ground as well. Perhaps an incoming request that tells the driver, at the very _least_, the amount he or she will earn for doing this trip. Possibly the direction and time as well just omitting the actual destination. There is precedent for this as well with Uber following local laws to make a certain market's experience unique for drivers. Chicago immediately comes to mind as they were forced to hide customer ratings on the incoming pings.

Hiding trip details while enforcing destination discrimination is totally incongruous with Uber and Lyft's main appeal: flexibility. I honestly don't know how some of you Jersey drivers do it. It is ridiculous.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)




----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

33101sundevil said:


> "Uber and Lyft are fundamentally different companies with different business models,"


Yeah, one has a black logo, the other one has a pink logo.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> I've never understood why a company as big as Uber doesn't self insure. It would have to save them money over buying insurance. The only reason I can think of is that they don't trust themselves to keep the cash reserves on hand that would be necessary for self insurance.
> 
> Yes, there is definitely a hole in the market that could be filled. The hole is commercial insurance for people that want to use their vehicles to generate income from time to time but don't want to be roped into making it a full-time job. Perhaps on a per mile basis? I've looked into full commercial insurance in the past, and all of the policies that I found were going to cost me about $5,000 per year. That might make sense if I were driving full time, but if I'm just driving occasionally on the weekends it eats up a significant portion of my profits for the year.


If I'm not mistaken, the vehicles would have to be registered under Ubers name not the drivers.

For Uber to insure other peoples vehicles they would have to become an insurance company.

Most major corporations want fixed costs. Yearly lease payment, 100M. Yearly employee costs, 200M. Yearly insurance, 75M.

They absolutely HATE variable costs because they screw up their projections and budgets.

My old employer was self insured but all the vehicles were company owned/leased registered. All drivers were employees.

Self insured up to One million dollars, after that insurance kicked in. Yes the vast majority of accidents were paid out by us but there were a few where the million dollar policy paid out. Usually the ones that involved deaths.

It also took up a lot of lawyers time both inhouse and out.

Insurance is not an easy business and that's why James River stopped covering Uber in some markets.


----------



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

Why the hell is this employee vs independent contractor vote being put to the people? The average Joe on the street won't have a clue what the issues are in this debate.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Why the hell is this employee vs independent contractor vote being put to the people? The average Joe on the street won't have a clue what the issues are in this debate.


That's what Uber/Lyft are counting on.


----------



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

observer said:


> That's what Uber/Lyft are counting on.


Risky, though?


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Why the hell is this employee vs independent contractor vote being put to the people? The average Joe on the street won't have a clue what the issues are in this debate.


The "average Joe on the street" loves ❤ Cheap Uber fares.✔
Driver Employee Status will:
INCREASE fares causing "average Joe on the street" Much Distress


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Risky, though?


It'll just be tossed out even if the prop passes. They are just trying to stretch out the process before they absolutely have to pay drivers as employees.

Right now I think Uber will start getting rid of older drivers to bring in fresh meat that don't know what they are doing.


----------



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

33101sundevil said:


> The "average Joe on the street" loves ❤ Cheap Uber fares.✔
> Driver Employee Status will:
> INCREASE fares causing "average Joe on the street" Much Distress


Ah, but AB5 was passed so that California (read California taxpayers) wouldn't have to foot social program expenses for UberLyft:

_"Employers shirk responsibility to safety net programs like workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Taxpayers are left to foot the bill,"_ Governor Newsom wrote in an op-ed piece published Monday.

Average Joe on the street is a taxpayer. If Average Joe is told that he will have to pay for UberLyft's contributions to workers' comp, unemployment insurance, healthcare etc if he votes for IC status, then maybe Joe will say, "No! I don't want to pay for Uberlyft's obligations!", and vote against IC.

So, as I say, it's risky. It all depends if Joe believes Uberlyft and wants cheaper fares, and pay instead through his taxes, or to have Uber foot the bill. But, as I also say, Average Joe on the street won't have any understanding of any of this.



observer said:


> It'll just be tossed out even if the prop passes. They are just trying to stretch out the process before they absolutely have to pay drivers as employees.
> 
> Right now I think Uber will start getting rid of older drivers to bring in fresh meat that don't know what they are doing.


Tbh, I am not familiar how "props" work in this country. Whether they are binding or not and whether they would trump or reverse laws such as AB5.

In my country, when the government asks the people what they should do, they call it a referendum, which is legally binding on the government. However, referendums happen very infrequently. Once every 50 or 100 years. Probably because they don't trust us not to balls it up.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> Well they say that for now, until Uber finally decides to buy/merge with Lyft or a new parent company comes out and buys them both. Pandemic is hitting both companies hard. Of course they are going to fight making drivers employees.


There's no way the govt would allow a merger or buyout.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Average Joe on the street is a taxpayer. If Average Joe is told that he will have to pay for UberLyft's contributions to workers' comp, unemployment insurance, healthcare etc if he votes for IC status, then maybe Joe will say, "No! I don't want to pay for Uberlyft's obligations!", and vote against IC.


You can add food stamps, welfare, and Section 8 housing assistance to what you listed above that the taxpayers get stuck paying due to the low pay and lack of benefits of IC work.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Ah, but AB5 was passed so that California (read California taxpayers) wouldn't have to foot social program expenses for UberLyft:
> 
> _"Employers shirk responsibility to safety net programs like workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Taxpayers are left to foot the bill,"_ Governor Newsom wrote in an op-ed piece published Monday.
> 
> ...


The voters will decide

California Proposition 22, the App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative, is on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020.


A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_...tractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)


----------



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

33101sundevil said:


> The riders who pay the fare will vote.


I would think that the vote is open to all voters in California.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> Right now I think Uber will start getting rid of older drivers to bring in fresh meat that don't know what they are doing.


I doubt that. Uber knows they need experienced full time drivers, especially for the all-important Mon-Fri rush hours.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I would think that the vote is open to all voters in California.


Semantics
Yes, @The Gift of Fish , the vote is open to all registered California voters.&#129395;
However, those that utilize RS May make a special effort


----------



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

33101sundevil said:


> Semantics
> Yes, @The Gift of Fish , the vote is open to all registered California voters.&#129395;
> However, those that utilize RS May make a special effort


Key word, "may". As I say, it's risky for Uberlyft to put this to the people. On the other hand, Uberlyft has nothing to lose. No cards left to play except this one.

My original post on this was why is this being allowed to be put to the people. I am not familiar with "props". Can anyone start a "prop" if they don't like a law? For example, I don't like California's income tax - can I start a "prop" and have voters vote on whether it should be abolished?


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> My original post on this was why is this being allowed to be put to the people.


 Because we live in a Democracy

An initiative (proposition) is brought about by writing a proposed law as a petition,
and submitting the petition to the California Attorney General along with a submission fee,
and obtaining signatures on petitions from registered voters amounting to 8 percent (for an amendment to the state constitution) or 5 percent (for a statute) of the number of people who voted in the most recent election for governor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition#Initiative
How to Qualify an Initiative
Statewide Ballot Initiative Guide
*https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-qualify-initiative/*


----------



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

33101sundevil said:


> An initiative (proposition) is brought about by writing a proposed law as a petition,
> and submitting the petition to the California Attorney General along with a submission fee,
> and obtaining signatures on petitions from registered voters amounting to 8 percent (for an amendment to the state constitution) or 5 percent (for a statute) of the number of people who voted in the most recent election for governor.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition#Initiative
> ...


Interesting. In the UK, citizens who get 100,000 signatures can have a matter debated in parliament. But that's all that happens. The debate could be:

- "What do you think of this petition?"
- "Sounds like BS to me"
- "It does to me to"
- "Next!"


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Five years ago, I drove X, Select and Black...x rate in PHX was around $1.50/mile....very doable.

Uber and Lyft screwed themselves with their race to the bottom, repeatedly cutting fares, trying to drive the other out of business.

Who works for less than half of what they did five years ago?

We do.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> *Who works for less than half of what they did five years ago?
> We do.*


Please explain or speculate Why "we do"


----------



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

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Five years ago, I drove X, Select and Black...x rate in PHX was around $1.50/mile....very doable.
> 
> Uber and Lyft screwed themselves with their race to the bottom, repeatedly cutting fares, trying to drive the other out of business.
> 
> ...


Good point, but as soon as it became clear that our work was being paid for from investor money and not from revenue, we knew it was not going to be sustainable. The good years were just a bubble.

I always compared it with the Titanic. Started out great, then started slowly sinking.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Good point, but as soon as it became clear that our work was being paid for from investor money and not from revenue, we knew it was not going to be sustainable. The good years were just a bubble.
> 
> I always compared it with the Titanic. Started out great, then started slowly sinking.


Cab rates were $2.50/mi back then.
There was plenty of rides.

Only morons cut margins like these idiots have. No sympathy for them whatsoever.

I only drive private livery, Black and SUV now, would not drive at current X rates. Some places .35/mi.
Twenty cents less than IRS standard deduct. It's an insult.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

33101sundevil said:


> Show me an Employee level profession where You can decide to become Employed
> by downloading an app and then start working earning money
> without HR & Supervisor oversight,
> without shift scheduling
> ...


Show me an Independent Contractor level profession where you have no say in negotiation of your pay with your partner, where an algorithm decides who gets what jobs, you have to accept the job before being told all the important details of the job, are given jobs that are not priced correctly because your partner can care less about your (one way) 30 mile trip out to nowhere for pennies per mile, because gas and tolls on the way back is at the driver's expense?

Anyone who has that much control over you is your boss aka Employer.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Anyone who has that much control over you is your boss aka Employer.


So that's a California Proportion 22 "No" vote✔


A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Uber : "See, we made changes! We're good! Right, government?"


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I think if the Opposition to the AB5 should push the unemployment angle, and how much uber mooched off unemployment without paying in.


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> So, reading between the lines, does this mean that, prior to making these changes, the drivers were not truly independent?
> 
> Ride details can be problematic. I haven't seen this touched on anywhere, but in some locations destination discrimination is illegal. If you provide rides for money, it is illegal to deny somebody a ride based on their destination. This is true in New Jersey, and New Jersey usually gets their crazy law ideas from California, so I suspect it is probably true there as well. As it stands, it is difficult to accuse a driver of destination discrimination because the driver does not know the destination prior to accepting the ride request. Pretty much the only way you can do it now is if the driver asks the rider where he is going before starting the trip and then cancels the ride upon learning the destination. If drivers are given this information when they receive the ride request, it opens up a can of worms. Why give drivers information in the ride request that they are not legally allowed to use when making a decision on whether or not to accept the request?
> 
> ...


since my first week in 2015 ive been "discriminating" if youre in the airport tmz its auto ignore simply because the bes ride is going to be $20 after costs to the airport, i couldnt care less if black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, going to a meth den, crack house, brothel, i give zero doo doos, havent picked up 1 person in these areas in 5000 trips over 5 years...

same 1st week never picked up walmarts, events, malls, restauraunts, bars, rail stations, bus stops, churhes....

its residents & hotels 30+ miles from airport xl only

i also dont see why a woman or senior out picking up rides should have to go to the projects or trailer parks at 3am or the frat house after the parties over

cabs have partitions for a reason, they cant stop discrimination nor should they try every hood will have a local to serve it if not oh well, i lived in plenty of places the pizza place wouldnt deliver to so hows that not "discrimination"

cabs are different they are owned by the cab company & again have partitions for a reason & have since the 70s... i dont care what happens to someone elses car lol, they have xameras, if damaged you get another cab but i have every right to let whomever i please in my property & every right to deny as its MY property...

its pretty easy to "discriminate" without details, im not blind or dumb, i can still kinda see the map that theyve degraded multiple times on purpose to trick me, i know if its a bad neighborhood im driving thru and it pings 1-5 minutes / miles away lol keep on movin till im in the area i know with the pings i want....

i can still see its walmart lol, 5 years ago i knew all the hotel addresses by heart now i know its 2.2 miles south is most likely this particular hotel & .8 miles west is a bunch of others, & i know walmarts, targets address so its just silly hiding details...

theres also calling & texting i do not care i refuse to work for free or illegal wages & i will drive right on by you if the destination isnt where i want or it feels like its going to be problems making the rider wait double or triple as long, so they dont care about riders experience much either because ive done that to literally thousands

then you accept trip just in case and zoom in oh they tried to trick me, cancel hows this benefit anyone sending blank contracts so drivers going in blind?

its a waste of time and evil. you have the rights to the details of your contract period, & guess what instead of leaving the house driving 3 minutes, starting trip seeing its $4 & cancelling if you show me the friggen details & i happen to be headed that way or need to i might just take your human trafficking request for the gas money cuz least im not losing money

you need to ignore or cancel 90+% of what these scum bags send you to succeed and have for 5+ years its ridiculous imagine turning down that much work at a real company eventually a human will reach out like why are you only accepting 10% of the jobs we send you, "well duh im not stupid or desperate enough to work for free or illegal 1970s wages" but then again the fbi & labor department wouldnt allow a real company to get away with it


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> I doubt that. Uber knows they need experienced full time drivers, especially for the all-important Mon-Fri rush hours.


They will have hundreds of thousands of unemployed Californians in a few months that will want to work full time.

Because there is no work.

There is a learning curve for new drivers but it's not insurmountable.

Many companies purposely rotate out long time employees because those are the ones that will create problems for them. New drivers don't know any better and are easily manipulated.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Good point, but as soon as it became clear that our work was being paid for from investor money and not from revenue, we knew it was not going to be sustainable.


Not according to Travis. In 2016 he said Uber was making a profit in the US, which means that Uber US operations were running on revenue, not investor handouts.








Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Says Company Is Profitable In U.S.


Uber is officially profitable in the U.S., Uber CEO Travis Kalanick told Canadian publication BetaKit earlier this week. H/t to Fortune for peeling out the buried news in that story, which was titled “Travis Kalanick Speaks Out: Uber’s CEO On Risk, Regulation, and Women in Tech.” Here’s the key...




techcrunch.com


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The cab company i drive for, they deal with accident investigations by sending out an experienced safety officer (who are all former insurance adjusters) to also handle the insurance claim and whatnot (the company self insures)
> 
> The reality is that if you have an insurance adjuster and Self insurance the investigator will be on YOUR side, and they will fight your side of the argument in an accident. Do you know WHY? Because if they lose the company is out the accident minus the deductible, but if they win they are out NOTHING.
> 
> ...


who gives a **** about saving money when you make 50 million a year, got a 200 million dollar signing bonus, cashed out 3 billion+ in stocks, bought a 100 million dollar mansion a 34 million dollar condo & ankther 74 million dollar mansion all while "losing" money cuz theyre "unprofitable"?

these evil scum bags arent stupid they can all do 3rd grade math & know .60 a mile was legal in the 1970s, they know its 2020 its calculated wage theft & modern day slavery brogrammed into an app

i wish people would stop talking about these criminals like theyre trying to actually run a successful business its a ponzi scam that gets millions a day in cash flow from human trafficking idiots & desperates all while skimming off the top, middle, bottom like an old vegas casino & bribing the fbi, labor department, courts, politicians to let them operate above all labor laws & human rights


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

gocovidgocovidgo said:


> since my first week in 2015 ive been "discriminating" if youre in the airport tmz its auto ignore simply because the bes ride is going to be $20 after costs to the airport, i couldnt care less if black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, going to a meth den, crack house, brothel, i give zero doo doos, havent picked up 1 person in these areas in 5000 trips over 5 years...


I said destination discrimination, not origin discrimination. As far as I know, it is legal to only pick up at certain locations. What is illegal is deny somebody a ride based on their destination.



gocovidgocovidgo said:


> i also dont see why a woman or senior out picking up rides should have to go to the projects or trailer parks at 3am or the frat house after the parties over


I don't feel that I should be forced to go to areas where I am not comfortable driving, either. That is one of the reasons I don't drive passengers. I am not saying that I support the law. I am only pointing out that the law exists in some locations.



gocovidgocovidgo said:


> i lived in plenty of places the pizza place wouldnt deliver to so hows that not "discrimination"


I don't know if the law applies to food delivery or just passengers. If it applies to food delivery, then I break it all the time because I definitely screen deliveries by delivery address. This time of year, I refuse to deliver to any address within a quarter mile of the beach just because parking is a huge hassle. I also refuse to deliver to high-rise apartment buildings.



mrpjfresh said:


> Hiding trip details while enforcing destination discrimination is totally incongruous with Uber and Lyft's main appeal: flexibility. I honestly don't know how some of you Jersey drivers do it. It is ridiculous.


I don't drive passengers myself, but I have seen people discussing this quite often on the New Jersey forum. The big issue for them is trips that go to NYC, specifically Brooklyn. There is no practical way to get to Brooklyn from New Jersey that doesn't involve crossing two bridges. The driver has to pay a toll each way, and it is typically a pretty hefty toll (around $15). With a passenger in the car, the driver will be reimbursed for the toll, so no big deal. Dead miling back without a passenger, though, the driver is on the hook for the toll with no reimbursement. So you might think the answer to that is for the driver to take rides in Brooklyn until he gets a passenger that is going to New Jersey, right? That gets him back across the bridges with the toll reimbursed. Good idea, but nope. Per NYC law, it is illegal for New Jersey drivers to pick up passengers in NYC.......even passengers that are going from NYC to New Jersey. So if a New Jersey driver takes a passenger to Brooklyn, he has no choice but to dead mile back to New Jersey and eat the return toll. So many New Jersey drivers refuse to take passengers to Brooklyn, even though it is illegal to deny a ride to passenger based on their destination. There are different methods of doing this without making it obvious that you are denying the ride because they are going to Brooklyn. Again, I don't drive passengers, so I don't know the ins and outs.



observer said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the vehicles would have to be registered under Ubers name not the drivers.
> 
> For Uber to insure other peoples vehicles they would have to become an insurance company.


Maybe that's why. It just always seemed to me that they were big enough and had enough volume to pay the claims instead of paying for insurance. Generally, the reason that you get insurance is because a claim is unlikely and you wouldn't have the money to pay for it if it happened. But as volume goes up, claims stop being an unlikely occurrence and instead become more of a statistical certainty that can be budgeted for. Since an insurance company has to bring in more money than they pay out in claims in order to operate at a profit, it generally becomes cheaper to just pay the claims yourself at that point.



observer said:


> Most major corporations want fixed costs. Yearly lease payment, 100M. Yearly employee costs, 200M. Yearly insurance, 75M.
> 
> They absolutely HATE variable costs because they screw up their projections and budgets.


Uber's entire business model revolves around variable costs, though. Every single ride is a variable cost.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> go to NYC, specifically Brooklyn. There is no practical way to get to Brooklyn from New Jersey that doesn't involve crossing two bridges. The driver has to pay a toll each way, and it is typically a pretty hefty toll (around $15). With a passenger in the car, the driver will be reimbursed for the toll, so no big deal. Dead miling back without a passenger, though, the driver is on the hook for the toll with no reimbursement.


I think some of the bridges in NYC have tolls in one direction only.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> I think some of the bridges in NYC have tolls in one direction only.


All the bridges have tolls in one direction only, but there is no way to get from New Jersey to Brooklyn without crossing two bridges. You will have a toll in one direction on one bridge, and then you will have a toll in the return direction on the other bridge.

For example, if you go through Manhattan, all bridges have tolls going into Manhattan but are toll free coming out of Manhattan, so you would have a toll from NJ to Manhattan on the way to Brooklyn and then a toll from Brooklyn to Manhattan on the way back to New Jersey. It's similar if you go through Staten Island instead of Manhattan.

The one-way tolls are specifically designed so that you can't completely shirk the tolls by choosing which bridges to take in which direction.

Trips to Manhattan aren't as bad because you have a toll entering Manhattan that you are reimbursed for because you have a passenger in the vehicle. Then when you return, the bridge is toll free. It still burns because you have no choice but to dead mile back, but it's not as bad as taking a passenger to Brooklyn.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

gocovidgocovidgo said:


> these evil scum bags arent stupid they can all do 3rd grade math & know .60 a mile was legal in the 1970s, they know its 2020 its calculated wage theft & modern day slavery brogrammed into an app


What am I missing Dr Zhivago?
&#128073;as Drivers accepting pings we are perpetuating the "Evil Scumbag" Fraud &
Slavery.

*A person who knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally gives assistance to another in (or in some cases fails to prevent another from) the commission of a crime. An accompliceis criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. An accomplice, unlike an accessory, is typically present when the crime is committed.*

&#128073;Without Drivers Uber couldn't perpetuate the crime
Drivers are accomplices


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

33101sundevil said:


> Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
> July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php
> Rival ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft united to fight AB5, California's gig-work law that could force them to turn their drivers into employees. Now Uber wants to go its own way in its legal battle with California, which sued both companies in May to challenge their classification of drivers as independent contractors.
> ...


This proves Lyft's management is really really dumb.


----------



## Tony73 (Oct 12, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> Well they say that for now, until Uber finally decides to buy/merge with Lyft or a new parent company comes out and buys them both. Pandemic is hitting both companies hard. Of course they are going to fight making drivers employees.


Uber/Lyft merger would be highly dangerous to both driver and pax. Charge what you want, pay what you want.


----------



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

Nats121 said:


> Not according to Travis. In 2016 he said Uber was making a profit in the US, which means that Uber US operations were running on revenue, not investor handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would not believe a word said by Travis. The same article says that Kalanick had also claimed that Uber would be profitable by Q2 2016.

:big grin: &#129315; :roflmao:


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> This proves Lyft's management is really really dumb.


Not necessarily.

Lyft lets Uber do all the heavy lifting then jump on board. They know that the state will see right through Ubers tactics.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

33101sundevil said:


> Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
> July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php


Apologies if this point was already made, as it is late and I did not read every comment. This move on Uber's side makes sense and could have been anticipated. *Uber doesn't want Lyft weighing down the chances of victory.* With all the changes Uber has facilitated to make the driver appear more independent -changes that Lyft has not made- like allowing the drivers to set their own fares, all those updates could be argued away by opposing counsel if Lyft is sitting there with Uber at the defendant's table in court.

At court, the strength-in-numbers-argument is significantly outweighed by the current policies of the Uber app. Uber would not have made the changes if it didn't think it would help win the case. Lyft is an albatross at this point since for once they did not mimic Uber.

Advantage: Uber


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

this is clearly a valid argument, uber gives way more independence than lyft


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Not according to Travis. In 2016 he said Uber was making a profit in the US, which means that Uber US operations were running on revenue, not investor handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your forgetting....

Nothing that clown says can be trusted and is probably a lie. Just like "Lower rates mean more money", "We are profitable in..." is a crock of equine feces. The number of outright lies TK has said over the years makes me instantly question anything he says.

Is uber profitable in the US?

Frankly i doubt it. Maybe they are profitable before accounting for lobbying, corporate headquarters RD and all the money that has been embezzled, or the US portion of software development. OR in other words, not at all profitable...

What i DO know is that uber was not profitible during the year they IPOed in. If they could have been they would have been and it would have exploded the valuation and the sale price.

Instead they kept business as usual...


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)




----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> They will have hundreds of thousands of unemployed Californians in a few months that will want to work full time.
> 
> Because there is no work.
> 
> ...


Uber and Lyft both realize that they can't rely exclusively on newbies and they have to have at least some experienced drivers available.

It's for that very reason that many experienced drivers have received "we've missed you" emails from both companies when they haven't driven for a while. Usually those emails include promotions to entice them back on the road. I've received those myself, especially from Lyft, and usually the promotion is halfway decent.

The companies wouldn't be sending those if they didn't feel they need some "veteran" drivers.

My guess is that when the percentage of "veteran" drivers falls below a certain level, they send out those emails.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Your forgetting....
> 
> Nothing that clown says can be trusted and is probably a lie. Just like "Lower rates mean more money", "We are profitable in..." is a crock of equine feces. The number of outright lies TK has said over the years makes me instantly question anything he says.
> 
> ...


Travis is a scumbag and a liar, but I believe what he said was true. I also believe he got careless when he said that.

The vast majority of the overhead for our rides is paid for by the drivers.

Ever since the disastrous rate cuts of 2014-15 (2013-15 in some markets such as Chicago) changed rideshare from a middle class job into a sub-poverty job, Uber has feared the govt may step in and either heavily regulate them (NYC) or declare the drivers employees (AB5).

It's that very fear that caused Uber to try to convince the public and the govt that rideshare is just a "little side gig" and that Uber is "losing money" on our rides.

Uber knows that Bernie Sanders and other pols would be on Uber's back as "greedy" and "profiteering on the backs of poorly paid drivers" (which is true).

Thus, for years it's been to Uber's advantage to appear to be "losing money" on our rides.

This is why Uber refuses to show profit/loss numbers by individual country. Other countries would also revolt if it was revealed Uber was making a profit on rides in those countries while paying the drivers terrible wages.

Look up Hollywood Accounting.



Tony73 said:


> Uber/Lyft merger would be highly dangerous to both driver and pax. Charge what you want, pay what you want.


The govt would never allow that merger because it would result in a virtual monopoly.


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

*OOPS* &#128556;
They Did It Again....
....That Pirate &#127988;‍☠ Dara Commandeered another company_&#127988;‍☠Ahrrrr"

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/16/21326823/uber-routematch-acquire-public-transportation-software_


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

33101sundevil said:


> What am I missing Dr Zhivago?
> &#128073;as Drivers accepting pings we are perpetuating the "Evil Scumbag" Fraud &
> Slavery.
> 
> ...


Labor trafficking in the United States is a form of human trafficking where victims are made to perform a task through force, fraud or coercion as it occurs in the United States.

key word FRAUD, hiding the details, degrading maps on purpose, sending blank contracts to deFRAUD labor into working for free or illegal wages

drivers CANT by law CHOOSE to work for free or illegal wages, blank contracts arent binding, contracts with illegal terms arent binding & are in breach. every ride request that requires free labor or illegal wages is FRAUD

dumb desperate math flunkies have human & constitutional rights so not accomplises but exploited modern day slave labor

I tend to cancel or ignore 90+% of the human trafficking requests but others such as seniors or immigrants may not have that chouce & will work for free or $3 an hour till they fail by criminal design

its modern day slavery brogrammed into an app nothing more nothing less

these evil weirdos think they deserve 50-90% of fares when a finders or connection fee is 10% they think they are clever but theyre nothing but human traffickers they despise & hate their drivers like hitler hated jewish people every action they make proves this as every word they utter is a lie & fraud, they sell $5 bills for $2 & violate every labor law that ever existed while claiming they can profit but cashed out & laundered billions thru salaries, real estate, bonuses....


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

gocovidgocovidgo said:


> dumb desperate math flunkies have human & constitutional rights so not accomplises but exploited modern day slave labor


 now I understand
Your ride share driving is Court Ordered.
You're unable to legally delete the uber driver's app
and seek employment elsewhere.
got it &#128077;

This is what Slave Labor looks like in today's world ⤵
Cutting up toxic ships for pennies a day.
And all have the skill level to be uber drivers


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

33101sundevil said:


> now I understand
> Your ride share driving is Court Ordered from a previous
> Felony Conviction Plea
> You're unable to legally delete the uber driver's app
> ...


nope nice ASSumption though havent had or needed a full time job since the 90s pretty much retired at 22

hope no one rapes your grandma, carjacks grampa, tricks your foreign neighbor because theyre ignorant of their rights, or takes advantage of your ******ed newphew because and call it "sharing"

the app robs millions per day of $1-5 per ride same as if it was a gun

i have a choice i realize many other dont.

anyone sticking up for these dirtbags is complicit in human trafficking & belongs on death row with all the execs & co founders

and yes i still shop at walmart, sams club, have accounts at bank of america, wells fargo, once owned a ford knowing all these companies are also criminals as public records can verify their fines for illegal activity its amerikkka get in where you fit in, theres no choice but to patronize evil, but the lessor of two evils is still evil, i have 5,000+ rides average payout is $50+ per ride ad 95+ % are xl only so ill ride the ponzi till it crumbles cuz self preservation wooha, im not going to turn down $50+ an hour from my bed but i realize im tbe 1% at this scam going on 5 years while 96% fail by design first & my acceptence rate has to be under 10% with a 50+% cancel rate to do so, as 90+% of the illegal blank contracts they send me are attempts to human traffic me & violate my article 23 of human & 13th amendment of my constitutional rights

Labor trafficking in the United States is a form of human trafficking where victims are made to perform a task through force, fraud or coercion as it occurs in the United States.

FRAUD is FORCE
FRAUD is FORCE

i didnt define it google uber FRAUD BANNED FINED its public record that these evil human traffickers have been found guilty of FRAUD thousands of times lmao its organised crime


----------



## 33101sundevil (Jul 14, 2020)

gocovidgocovidgo said:


> i have a choice i realize many other dont.


What are your employment options ?


----------



## gocovidgocovidgo (Jul 15, 2020)

33101sundevil said:


> What are your employment options ?


my $ does most of the work as it should
pretty much retired at 22 & no that doesnt mean im a millionaire yet, it means properties paid for so only bills are utilities, i lay in bed 20 hours a day like i have for 20+ years

but i sho aint stoopid enough to turn down $50 an hour from bed during squawk box & first take too bad 90+% of the requests i have to ignore or cancel because i can do 3rd grade math & dont work for free or illegal wages, but i do admit uber lyft has succeeded in human trafficking me a couple hundred times out of 5000+ trips, gotta charge it to the game no need to get in confrontations, assualt pax, & when they did care about cancel rates after like 3 in a row gotta take 1 for the team to get that % down so they dont fire ya, even though thats duress & you cant fire someone for refusing to work for free or illegal wages even though uber lyft does, which is illegal

Buddha is good Buddha is great al lah Buddha & blessings to all


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> oh, that is quite funny. I mean, really funny. :roflmao:


It's not even debatable that at least some drivers would benefit from joining a union, especially full timers who currently have no benefits and no job security.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> s not even debatable that at least some drivers would benefit from joining a union


baaaa. You would need 50% +1 to approve a union and that is only if we were official employees. Not happening. Kinda a reason union membership has been in free fall for years.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

SHalester said:


> baaaa. You would need 50% +1 to approve a union and that is only if we were official employees. Not happening. Kinda a reason union membership has been in free fall for years.


Disney world is going to be at nearly double the local min wage in October... because of the Union. There pay really isn't bad, it's not.

I guarantee that union dues aren't _50%_

You think the guy wiping butt sweat off the pirates of the Caribbean ride has any negotiating power in terms of his wage without the union?

You think it would be double the min wage without the union?

You think the army of guys wiping butt sweat off the rides and selling bottled water, selling chotskies or sweeping/carting trash or scrubbing toilets would get better than min wage doing the same jobs elsewhere?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I guarantee that union dues aren't _50%_


not sure where that came from, at all. My point and a fact: you need to be an employee to be in a union (please nobody mention the unicorns in hollywood). And then the employees need to VOTE to become unionized. You really think any group of drivers will vote 50% + 1 to form a union? I don't. 
Like I said union membership is in decline for a reason.......


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Good point, but as soon as it became clear that our work was being paid for from investor money and not from revenue, we knew it was not going to be sustainable. The good years were just a bubble.
> 
> I always compared it with the Titanic. Started out great, then started slowly sinking.


That's true. They overpaid at the beginning to grow their market share and also to grow the entire rideshare business.


----------



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

goneubering said:


> That's true. They overpaid at the beginning to grow their market share and also to grow the entire rideshare business.


Yes, anyone can sell $5 bills for $2 and grow their business exponentially while losing gigantic sums of money in the process.

In the early days, a lot of pax would ask, "How can Uber be so _cheap_?! Is it because they are more efficient than taxis?". I'd tell them that they were not paying for all of their ride and that the shortfall was being paid for by Uber's investors.


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, anyone can sell $5 bills for $2 and grow their business exponentially while losing gigantic sums of money in the process.
> 
> In the early days, a lot of pax would ask, "How can Uber be so _cheap_?! Is it because they are more efficient than taxis?". I'd tell them that they were not paying for all of their ride and that the shortfall was being paid for by Uber's investors.


Yes, the founder of softbank "donated" a cheap ride to them. LOL.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> That's true. They overpaid at the beginning to grow their market share and also to grow the entire rideshare business.


That was Uber's problem, not driver's problem. Please don't forget how the vast majority of the drivers were and are using their own vehicles, and cover all the expenses involved.

At the beginning was not the driver that was being payed too much, while Uber never covered any vehicle expenses.

Uber took advantage of drivers ignorance and enforced the "whenever you want to drive" type of convenience, encouraging many drivers that were simply not ready, not knowledgeable enough and not able to provide the required customer service (something cab companies totally ignored but customers loved) for competitive ridesharing service.

The riders were and still are willing to pay more/accordingly for a better service, depending on the quality provided by drivers' ability to drive safely and cars' cleanliness.

I completely disagree with the concept that Uber payed drivers too much. As long as drivers are different, and as long as they were independent, they should have been treated differently based on consumer reviews reflected by the drivers' independent ratings.

That never happened.

Unfortunately, Ubers' own business analysis made them decide to keep lowering rates in order to capture more cheaper market share, that consequently hurt only the drivers interacting with the riders.

At the same time, Uber also decided to increase their share, again on drivers expenses, forcing their "independent" partners to agree with the change or otherwise quit.

Instead of working to create a better product, Uber pushed for a worse formula that gradually but quickly damaged the service to the level where driving for Uber under their moronic and ridiculous revenue limitations makes drivers look like idiots. And there are still some drivers willing to put up with this insult.

What Uber did at the beginning was indeed, covering almost 60% of ride costs by subsidizing it with investor money. By doing that, they also affected drivers ride revenue, because driver percentage was calculated on the subsidized ride value, and not on real ride value.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

33101sundevil said:


> Uber to Lyft: You can't ride with us on California's AB5 lawsuit
> July 15, 2020 7:45 p.m.
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-You-can-t-ride-with-us-on-15410954.php
> Rival ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft united to fight AB5, California's gig-work law that could force them to turn their drivers into employees. Now Uber wants to go its own way in its legal battle with California, which sued both companies in May to challenge their classification of drivers as independent contractors.
> ...


The only solution with this company it is not letting them to take more then 5%interest from drivers fare because are digital dispatch .



33101sundevil said:


> Show me an Employee level profession where You can decide to become Employed
> by downloading an app and then start working earning money
> without HR & Supervisor oversight,
> without shift scheduling
> ...


Go to NYC then you find everything including commercial insurance dog test every 4 month vehicle inspection only thing are driver free come to work when they want .when drivers do that Uber put them on hold for not getting trips .Uber forcing drivers to take 1500 trips otherwise take them off line anywhere anytime .. so drivers are 100%employee without any benefit .UBER take the big cut and driver's running from shop to shop for used tires


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Lyft lets Uber do all the heavy lifting then jump on board. They know that the state will see right through Ubers tactics.


It seems risky. The state could recognize Uber is good with ICs and then pulverize Lyft.



jocker12 said:


> That was Uber's problem, not driver's problem. Please don't forget how the vast majority of the drivers were and are using their own vehicles, and cover all the expenses involved.
> 
> At the beginning was not the driver that was being payed too much, while Uber never covered any vehicle expenses.
> 
> ...


All true EXCEPT some drivers were making good money at the beginning of rideshare either through their own driving or from recruiting. It's extremely rare for a driver to make good money today.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

_Tron_ said:


> Apologies if this point was already made, as it is late and I did not read every comment. This move on Uber's side makes sense and could have been anticipated. *Uber doesn't want Lyft weighing down the chances of victory.* With all the changes Uber has facilitated to make the driver appear more independent -changes that Lyft has not made- like allowing the drivers to set their own fares, all those updates could be argued away by opposing counsel if Lyft is sitting there with Uber at the defendant's table in court.
> 
> At court, the strength-in-numbers-argument is significantly outweighed by the current policies of the Uber app. Uber would not have made the changes if it didn't think it would help win the case. Lyft is an albatross at this point since for once they did not mimic Uber.
> 
> Advantage: Uber


"since for once they did not mimic Uber"

Not yet, they haven't.



goneubering said:


> It seems risky. The state could recognize Uber is good with ICs and then pulverize Lyft.
> 
> 
> All true EXCEPT some drivers were making good money at the beginning of rideshare either through their own driving or from recruiting. It's extremely rare for a driver to make good money today.


It's unlikely the state will back down even with Uber making these changes.

Lyft can always say ooopsies we'll do the same at a later time.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> "since for once they did not mimic Uber"
> 
> Not yet, they haven't.
> 
> ...


Uber's done enough to prove drivers are ICs. In my opinion. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I always compared it with the Titanic. Started out great, then started slowly sinking.


This is my understanding of unions.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

sellkatsell44 said:


> This is my understanding of unions.


So you're saying combining Uber with a union would be Double Trouble??!!


----------



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

goneubering said:


> Uber's done enough to prove drivers are ICs. In my opinion.


The first test for IC status under AB5 is:

_(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract. _

Uber has indeed given drivers more freedom. I agree that Uber has lessened its control over drivers. However, the humdinger is the second test:

_ (B) The work performed is outside the "usual course" of the hiring entity's business. _

Uber drivers do not pass this second test for IC status. Drivers are in the transportation business, and so is Uber. In April 2018 Uber acquired Jump and became a bicycle transportation operator. Uber had claimed to be simply a seller of software to the transportation industry, but this was false. A software seller does not buy tens of thousands of bicycles and then rent them out to its customers as a transportation service. 18 months later, AB5 was passed and Uber hurried divested itself of Jump in the wake of the legislation in order to try to reposition itself as just a software provider, but it was too late.

Additionally, Uber has spent billions on self-driving cars with a view to developing its own fleet of vehicles to operate and sell rides direct to its customers. Software companies do not develop their own fleets of vehicles to operate in their provision of transportation services. Transportation companies do.

With Uber's jump into and then hastily out of Jump and its work in building its own self-driving fleet, no rational person can believe Uber's claim that it is a software company and not a transportation company. For this reason alone it doesn't and can't meet the requirements of AB5 in order to classify its workers as IC.

One benefit of late is that Uber has dropped the alternative claim of drivers being neither ICs or employees, but Uber's customers, which was beyond ludicrous.


----------



## weirdocensorsmakegreatnaz (Jul 18, 2020)

i was in 2 unions it was like $30 a month & well worth it. uber lyft will never get to that point but if they did guarauntee rates would be regulated like cabs and all the fraud uber lyft would go poof.

its not ever gonna happen, neither is employee status, theyre showing details, now letting drivers pick rates which would shut me up, next theyll do it state by state by force, then the last thing theyll be forced to do is abide by a minimum regulated minimum fare, per mile & per min rate that drivers cant go under

and theyll do it kicking & screaming all the way it only will take a decade+ to be the taxi cab company they never wanted to be

every state will eventually sue these human traffickers posing as legit biz, massachusettes got next, uber lyft will become low hanging fruit, i mean they actually have .60 a mile on billions of receipts lmao

honestly id be happy with just seeing the details of my contracts per my rights to do due dilligence on them, but in the meantime and the last 5 years i just call & or text to get them which is a 10 second annoyance, & then cancel everyone that doesnt pay a legal wage which is 90+% of them


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

weirdocensorsmakegreatnaz said:


> i was in 2 unions it was like $30 a month & well worth it. uber lyft will never get to that point but if they did guarauntee rates would be regulated like cabs and all the fraud uber lyft would go poof.
> 
> its not ever gonna happen, neither is employee status, theyre showing details, now letting drivers pick rates which would shut me up, next theyll do it state by state by force, then the last thing theyll be forced to do is abide by a minimum regulated minimum fare, per mile & per min rate that drivers cant go under
> 
> ...


I paid 25 bux a month in '83, came out to two and a half hours of monthly pay, which at the time was about ten bux an hour.

Mninimum wage was about three something an hour.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> (B) The work performed is outside the "usual course" of the hiring entity's business.


how this one has been 'avoided' is clearly a mystery of epic proportions. How's this test: one day no drivers go online. What biz would Uber be in for that day?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> The first test for IC status under AB5 is:
> 
> _(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract. _
> 
> ...


B. You're probably right about full time drivers but part timers seem like they fit into that verbiage. Especially if they have another job.


----------



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

goneubering said:


> B. You're probably right about full time drivers but part timers seem like they fit into that verbiage. Especially if they have another job.


Test B only tests to see if the specific work done for Uber (transporting pax) is in Uber's usual line of business, not whether the worker's usual line of business is Uber's usual line of business.

In fact, requirement B doesn't mention the worker at all. It references only two things: (1) the work performed and (2) the _hiring entity's_ (Uber's) usual line of business. So a driver could be a chicken farmer 60 hours per week, and the 3 hours per week he drives for Uber would be transportation work, working for a transportation provider. In his work for Uber he could not therefore be considered to be an IC.

Uber's line of business is transportation. This doesn't change regardless of how many hours per week each of its individual workers does for it. And the work performed by drivers is transportation work, regardless of how many hours per week a driver does.

Take two identical rides from the airport to City Hall. In one ride the driver is a part-timer who works 5 hours per week. In the second ride the driver works 50 hours per week. The rides are identical, and it makes no difference how many hours the driver works - both rides are the provision of transportation service provided for a company that is a transportation provider.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Test B only tests to see if the specific work done for Uber (transporting pax) is in Uber's usual line of business, not whether the worker's usual line of business is Uber's usual line of business.
> 
> In fact, requirement B doesn't mention the worker at all. It references only two things: (1) the work performed and (2) the _hiring entity's_ (Uber's) usual line of business. So a driver could be a chicken farmer 60 hours per week, and the 3 hours per week he drives for Uber would be transportation work, working for a transportation provider. In his work for Uber he could not therefore be considered to be an IC.
> 
> ...


That explains why Uber says they're not a transportation company. I rhink they emphasized that point in one of the mandatory contracts I signed so I could keep driving.


----------



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

goneubering said:


> That explains why Uber says they're not a transportation company. I rhink they emphasized that point in one of the mandatory contracts I signed so I could keep driving.


Yes, of course - that claim is essential to their position. However, Uber could include in its contract a clause that said, "Drivers agree that the moon is made of blue cheese", and require that they sign it in order to keep driving. However, just because someone signs their name against something in a contract, it doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

Legislation (i.e. AB5) _always_ trumps anything written in a contract (if that were not so then any of us could effectively create new law simply by creating a contact).


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

weirdocensorsmakegreatnaz said:


> i was in 2 unions it was like $30 a month & well worth it. uber lyft will never get to that point but if they did guarauntee rates would be regulated like cabs and all the fraud uber lyft would go poof.
> 
> its not ever gonna happen, neither is employee status, theyre showing details, now letting drivers pick rates which would shut me up, next theyll do it state by state by force, then the last thing theyll be forced to do is abide by a minimum regulated minimum fare, per mile & per min rate that drivers cant go under
> 
> ...


$30 a month? Union wages are like 15-20% higher. So that's easily $30 _extra a day_

Unions are like driving a cab. You don't get how awesome it is unless your benefiting from it.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> $30 a month? Union wages are like 15-20% higher. So that's easily $30 _extra a day_
> 
> Unions are like driving a cab. You don't get how awesome it is unless your benefiting from it.


Yupp, I made 3X the hourly minimum wage.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

observer said:


> Yupp, I made 3X the hourly minimum wage.


I think it started out great/ but then I spoke to someone in a union recently, pays dues and hasn't had much of a raise (in the cents) for the past few years.

I think everything with good intentions eventually falls into corruption.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> I think it started out great/ but then I spoke to someone in a union recently, pays dues and hasn't had much of a raise (in the cents) for the past few years.
> 
> I think everything with good intentions eventually falls into corruption.


It's a chikin and egg situation.

If not enough people are union there is no leverage against companies. They'll threaten to close up shop.

I've sat at the table during union negotiations (on the management side) and have seen what companies do to suppress unions.

The company I worked at had nine locations. Out of those nine locations, one voted to go union, all because of one lousy manager that treated workers like crap. The company as a whole was REALLY good to the workers. Just one idiot screwed it up.

When our company was bought out, guess who was promoted to director? From what I've heard company morale is now terrible.

Companies have had a very strong upper hand for the past few decades.

I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

observer said:


> I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.


I think about this for a lot of things, including how capitalism in America is.


----------



## myNAMEismyNAME (Jul 20, 2020)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> $30 a month? Union wages are like 15-20% higher. So that's easily $30 _extra a day_
> 
> Unions are like driving a cab. You don't get how awesome it is unless your benefiting from it.


um $30 * 20% would be $6

or $36 a month? whose paying $900+ a month union dues lmao?

this was early to mid 90s where starting wage was $10 within 90 days if you hit numbers went to $11, 3 years you were around $13 & 5th year was $17+ all negotiated by the union

basic straight out of high school warehouse picking job, loading pallets & trucks in a refrigerated, freezer, or dry warehouse...

keep in mind amazon & walmart were at $11 an hour last year and only upped to $15 in the last 12 months & roseanne at wellmans plastics was striking for $11 in 1989 because they were making $9 and george clooney wasnt havin it lol

so sorry not sorry every union job i had was well worth the dues


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.businessinsider.com/ama...7?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=referral


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

myNAMEismyNAME said:


> um $30 * 20% would be $6
> 
> or $36 a month? whose paying $900+ a month union dues lmao?
> 
> ...


if you look at what I was saying..

$30 a month is nothing compared to the15-20% extra in wages.

so $30 a month to get $30 extra per day.

I completely agree with you, being in a union is awesome.


----------



## driverdoug (Jun 11, 2017)

You can never start a family driving for Uber. I got my first union job in my early 40’s. Make a long story short, that job enabled me to buy a home and start a 
family later in my life. Unions, in my experience, can make a huge difference for working people. Don’t fall for the anti-union propaganda.


----------

