# Uber:We Don't Have to Pay Driver's Based off Rider's Fare



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/
*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 DAVID KRAVETS - 9/18/2017

Uber is fighting a proposed class-action lawsuit that says it secretly over charges riders and under pays drivers. In its defense, the ride-hailing service claims that nobody is being defrauded in its "upfront" rider fare pricing model.

The fares charged to riders don't have to match up with the fares paid to drivers, Uber said, because that's what a driver's "agreement" allows.

"Plaintiff's allegations are premised on the notion that, once Uber implemented Upfront Pricing for riders, it was required under the terms of the Agreement to change how the Fare was calculated for Drivers," Uber said (PDF) in a recent court filing seeking to have the class-action tossed. "This conclusion rests on a misinterpretation of the Agreement."

The suit claims that, when a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride, the fare the app immediately shows the passenger is based on a slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the driver. The rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to the lawsuit.

Uber claims the disparity between rider and driver fares "was hardly a secret."

"Drivers," Uber told a federal judge, "could have simply asked a User how much he or she paid for the trip to learn of any discrepancy."

*A contract is a contract*
Uber doesn't consider its drivers employees, and it doesn't call their pay "commissions." Instead, it allows drivers to keep the fare presented to them in the Uber driver app, even if the fare is different from what the rider was charged. The driver then pays Uber a "service fee"-a percentage of the fare earned by the driver.

The San Francisco-based ride-hailing service also claims that it took "significant risk" under this "upfront" fare pricing model, which began last year.

_Plaintiff further alleges that, after Upfront Pricing began, Drivers continued to earn based on the trip's distance and the amount of time it actually took to complete the trip. Plaintiff claims the Upfront Price is often higher than the Fare, which is the basis of what is remitted to him. He neglects to mention, however, the significant risk placed on Uber, not Drivers, by Upfront Pricing: the User's Upfront Price may just as easily disadvantage Uber, for example, where an actual trip takes longer than expected, yet the Driver's earnings calculation remains constant._​
What's more, a rider might also pay Uber more than what the driver's fare is based on because a driver's contract allows Uber to "adjust" the fare known and paid to the driver, according to Uber's legal filing.

"The Agreement allows Uber to adjust the Fare under various circumstances. For example, Uber is permitted to make changes to the Fare Calculation based on local market factors," Uber said in its federal court response. "Likewise, Uber may adjust the Fare based on other factors such as inefficient routes, technical errors, or customer complaints."

And here's the kicker:

_Drivers disclaim any right to receive amounts over and above the Fare produced by the Fare Calculation._​
The suit, which seeks class-action status, demands back pay and legal fees. It wants a Los Angeles federal judge to halt the alleged "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices."

A hearing is set for December 1.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

MHR said:


> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/


This double dipping while not illegal, floats in a grey area of acceptable business practice. For uber it means constant lawsuits. Being a service provider that transports humand (not a tech company at all) uber has a VERY difficult challenge. That is to:
1. Make sure its drivers are not killing an injuring passegers. Impossible when they are being paid minimum wage.
2. Reduce the erraneous app incidents that will always be part of a class action. This is impossible to deal with because they provide the app, the terms, the logistics and will always be a target for class action as long as they continue to "innovate".

Uber=the are between a rock and a hard place. Investors welcome


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

I understand that we get paid per mile/minutes. That's fine.

The problem for me is Uber doesn't even have raising our rates on the radar yet they charge pax more and more.

Gas prices rose with the hurricanes and while Uber gave free rides from the shelters they did nothing to help the drivers. They could have tossed in an extra buck per trip for gas not at the pax expense.

It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company. It seems as if they forget drivers are a necessary part of their business practice.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

MHR said:


> It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company.


They simply do not care. In their eyes we are a means to an end. Uber is currently spending millions to come off as they do care but they do not. Evety single change uber makes is a benifit to uber 1st, riders second and if they can spin it as such, drivers 3rd. Even in app tipping , which took 7 years, wasn't for us. It was PR and to keep drivers from jumping ship to lyft who was/is expanding into more and more matkets that uber has/had a monopoly on. Every single change is to benifit uber first.


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

It seems like the next round of the "180 days of change" should of been announced by now, makes me wonder if this case somehow effects it. Just a thought.


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

MoreTips said:


> It seems like the next round of the "180 days of change" should of been announced by now, makes me wonder if this case somehow effects it. Just a thought.


You mean 180 Days Of Scams. Notice how the first part was "earnings" and by that I mean allowing tipping. As if it's a nice gift they gave us. People rarely tip, one of ten rides max. They did this to appease idiot drivers while robbing them through upfront fares scam and increasing booking fees. So under their 180 Scams scheme they covered earnings cause now you'll be rich from them being gracious enough to allow tipping.


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

One day in the future our decendants will have a "fun fact" that they had a relative that was involved with UBER.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

MHR said:


> It seems they are just out of touch with the fact that drivers possibly happy with driving for Uber would be a good thing for the company. It seems as if they forget drivers are a necessary part of their business practice.


You couldn't be any farther from the truth. Uber is in complete touch with drivers' ignorance. Uber is completely correct not paying drivers based off what they receive from customers. Drivers have *ALWAYS *been paid on a per mile/min basis with Uber. 
When UberX started in Jan '14 the rates were $2.25/mile. The more Uber dropped their pricing the more drivers joined. Uber has had over 700k U.S. drivers with 400,000 active at any given time. Why would Uber raise pricing? They already make up to 50% of the fare from drivers with minimal overhead. The past has proven that Uber has an unlimited supply of drivers ignorant enough to drive for $.60/mile.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

They dropped prices claiming pax were complaining of high fares and that lower fares equal more money. If we didn't know already, it's been proven to be balony, and what they are doing contradicts the theory.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

[email protected] not raising rates and catching up to the old rates with upfront scam.

How they managed to raise the rates back only for them to take more money, pass flyer's at airports making everyone aware of their scam to see how quickly they start losing drivers again or get sued.

Quote from ars technica



> Most companies wait until they've established a monopoly before turning into utter and complete dicks. Uber did us the favor of previewing its own ethos beforehand. The only smart thing to do is to kill it. Let it choke on its own hubris.


Haha, this is Kalanick's big mistake and his very last, I said it from the start.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

One hidden thorn is that when pax pay more, they assume that we make more, and so they tip even less than they already do.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

Everyday... There is a new story. Today it is about the Upfront Pricing Scam. Then it's the bribes they gave lawmakers to let them into the market.


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

MHR said:


> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/


The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

so all Uber, Lyft, and VIA drivers band together to form the Independent Driver's Guild of Chicago. Get a hold of the union that is helping the New York drivers to organize. Make a stand, demand changes, if not by the companies then by the government. In the Chicago area there are supposed to be over 30,000 full and part time drivers. That is a lot of political pressure.


----------



## Entitled_ Bro (Oct 3, 2016)

Because of this lawsuit Uber is saying that we are not independent contractors, the premise they used to deny that we weren't employees. WTF are we then?
!


----------



## Mikek999 (May 17, 2017)

Sounds fare to me... I’ll just go into my Waze and avoid toll roads and freeways.


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

Too Many Miles said:


> The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
> Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.


Exactly this is a huge miscalculation on Ubers part, you cannot have it both ways. Same thing with the employee or IC issue. Uber sooo should of went public last year. It's all catching up with them.


----------



## Uber Duber Chick (Jun 29, 2017)

Entitled_ Bro said:


> Because of this lawsuit Uber is saying that we are not independent contractors, the premise they used to deny that we weren't employees. WTF are we then?
> !


Chopped Liver


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Too Many Miles said:


> The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
> Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.


Actually, Uber is now simply charging the passenger to use the Uber App to interact with drivers. Drivers have always been charged, so we simply just getting what we've always gotten. Screwed


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

MoreTips said:


> One day in the future our decendants will have a "fun fact" that they had a relative that was involved with UBER.


Uber is the modern day Amway. It is a scam that even relatively intelligent people can fall for. Uber has two customers: riders and drivers.


----------



## Friendly Jack (Nov 17, 2015)

Too Many Miles said:


> The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
> Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.


Did you mean "unfare" or "unfair"? If the former, that is one of the most clever posts I have ever seen here!


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

Friendly Jack said:


> Did you mean "unfare" or "unfair"? If the former, that is one of the most clever posts I have ever seen here!


Unfair.
Stupid android tablet.


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

I wonder about one facet of a difference between Taxi laws like in NY and the issue of pricing a ride for a longer route than shown to drivers. The words may be different but the meaning is the same. In NY for example, it is illegal to deliberately take a longer route in miles in order to collect a higher fare. It is illegal for a taxi driver to add any amount above the meter fare other than for listed reasons. These things Uber The App are doing. They compute a longer route and charge the passenger that. They add arbitrary unrelated fees to the miles driven. NY Taxis have a flag. Uber has a base fare. NY taxis do not have a hailing, pulling over, help passenger fee. Uber The App has a booking fee. Uber The App charges a driver too. The only way I can compare, it seems to me like this is an important comparison.

Uber The App should reshape Up Front Pricing, make Booking Fees transparent, and form it to a Maximum Fare. Charge the actual and pay a share to drivers. And raise the rates.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

MHR said:


> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/
> *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 DAVID KRAVETS - 9/18/2017
> ...


A contract is a contract, if it was negotiated in good faith, but Uber's contract isn't. It is a demand of Uber rules and if the driver doesn't like it, then that driver cannot drive for Uber. So in reality Uber's contract is a set of employee rules that if you don't agree to, you're fired. Simple as that. And in that set of rules Uber says they can change the rules anytime they like. That is not a contract but a mandate.
And if it is an Agreement, and I don't like it, can I argue to change it - NO. Can I re-negotiate this agreement - NO.


----------



## Fuber in their faces (Feb 19, 2017)

How about the months of rides before they updated the tos (by the way, for many/most this was done under economic duress.)


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Uber started upfront pricing months before they changed the TOS. This undercuts their arguments.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

MHR said:


> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/
> *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 DAVID KRAVETS - 9/18/2017
> ...


All this crap does is give me but one more reason I want to quit as soon as I can. Way to go, Uber, you screwed us again.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Tom Harding said:


> A contract is a contract, if it was negotiated in good faith, but Uber's contract isn't. It is a demand of Uber rules and if the driver doesn't like it, then that driver cannot drive for Uber. So in reality Uber's contract is a set of employee rules that if you don't agree to, you're fired. Simple as that. And in that set of rules Uber says they can change the rules anytime they like. That is not a contract but a mandate.
> And if it is an Agreement, and I don't like it, can I argue to change it - NO. Can I re-negotiate this agreement - NO.


You are not driving for Uber. You are driving for Tom Hardy Transportation Inc. Uber provides an app that connects people who needs a ride to Tom Hardy Transporation Inc. If you do not like the terms of use for this lead generation for your transporation business, you are free to use any other option for generating leada for your business



Rat said:


> Uber started upfront pricing months before they changed the TOS. This undercuts their arguments.


The contract from december 2015 never tied pax charge to driver pay. Drivers were always paid based on the rate table of their city, its just they always charged pax based on the same rate table but there is no contractual obgligation to have done so.

The may 2017 addendum merely clarified and solidified their position.



Tom Harding said:


> A contract is a contract, if it was negotiated in good faith, but Uber's contract isn't. It is a demand of Uber rules and if the driver doesn't like it, then that driver cannot drive for Uber. So in reality Uber's contract is a set of employee rules that if you don't agree to, you're fired. Simple as that. And in that set of rules Uber says they can change the rules anytime they like. That is not a contract but a mandate.
> And if it is an Agreement, and I don't like it, can I argue to change it - NO. Can I re-negotiate this agreement - NO.


I cant argue with my cell phone contract. I cant argue my electric terma of service. I can't argue my rental contract. They present a contract and I decide if I agree to it or not. If not, the likelihood of any of those organizations will modify it just for me is slim to none. We accept terms of tervices for practically everything we do in life, most of which we have no negotiation power to modify. You either accept it or use alternate services.



Too Many Miles said:


> The problem with this is that it clearly puts Uber into the "Transportation Company" category, we are no longer getting paid by the riders then giving a fee to Uber. With the new agreement Uber is charging the riders for "transportation" then paying the drivers for their services, so something will have to change.
> Don't forget that Uber does not want to be categorized as a transportation company, otherwise they would be regulated more and would have to compete without an unfare advantage.


Is priceline transportation company? No, they are a middleman that connects passengers to someone willing to transport them.

Just because they charge the pax direct doesnt change the fact that they do not do the physical transportation. They contract that out to us. They are just booking the reservation. They certainly are entitled to both charge the pax for booking services and the contractors for providing them a paid lead.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> The contract from december 2015 never tied pax charge to driver pay. Drivers were always paid based on the rate table of their city, its just they always charged pax based on the same rate table but there is no contractual obgligation to have done so.
> 
> The may 2017 addendum merely clarified and solidified their position.
> 
> Is priceline transportation company? No, they are a middleman that connects passengers to someone willing to transport them.


The contract from 2015 specified terms that were based on time, mileage, booking fee, and base rate. There was a 25% commission on time, mileage and base rate. Uber got all the booking fee. There was no "service fee". Uber started charging the service fee outside the bounds of the contract. There is no current rate table, they just charge what they think they can get away with.
If their "position" hasn't charged, why did they need to "clarify" it?
A judge has already ruled using multiple methods to calculate fares is intent to defraud


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Rat said:


> The contract from 2015 specified terms that were based on time, mileage, booking fee, and base rate. There was a 25% commission on time, mileage and base rate. Uber got all the booking fee. There was no "service fee". Uber started charging the service fee outside the bounds of the contract. There is no current rate table, they just charge what they think they can get away with.
> If their "position" hasn't charged, why did they need to "clarify" it?
> A judge has already ruled using multiple methods to calculate fares is intent to defraud


They had to clarify it because obviously many drivers couldnt grasp the concept.

The judge isln california ruled that there's enough to take it to trial. He had passed no judgement as I believe the court date is October 2nd, which is next week.

There is a rate table, thats what you get paid per mile and time, plus base fare.

The 25% was the service fee.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> They had to clarify it because obviously many drivers couldnt grasp the concept.
> 
> The judge isln california ruled that there's enough to take it to trial. He had passed no judgement as I believe the court date is October 2nd, which is next week.
> 
> ...


Neither did their own lawyers, so they said it had to be changed.
His dismissal of their motion to dismiss indicates their new TOS doesn't protect them of the charge.
We were paid more per mile and time, the 25% was a commission, not a service fee.
Uber's claim that the extra charges are to the rider are not disclosed to the riders. Uber will at a minimum be forced to return those unadvertised charges to the riders.
I no longer accept base rate fares from Uber or Lyft. Without surge or prime time, the compensation isn't worth the expense and effort


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Rat said:


> Neither did their own lawyers, so they said it had to be changed.
> His dismissal of their motion to dismiss indicates their new TOS doesn't protect them of the charge.
> We were paid more per mile and time, the 25% was a commission, not a service fee.
> Uber's claim that the extra charges are to the rider are not disclosed to the riders. Uber will at a minimum be forced to return those unadvertised charges to the riders.
> I no longer accept base rate fares from Uber or Lyft. Without surge or prime time, the compensation isn't worth the expense and effort


I agree, I havent driven since surged died at the start of summer in Atlanta.

If that was all there is for judgement, thered be no reason for a court hearing. Judge saw enough to allow for full a full trial, well see what happens. The downride for Uber is that its happening in California. Anything can certainly happen.


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> You are not driving for Uber. You are driving for Tom Hardy Transportation Inc. Uber provides an app that connects people who needs a ride to Tom Hardy Transporation Inc. If you do not like the terms of use for this lead generation for your transporation business, you are free to use any other option for generating leada for your business
> 
> The contract from december 2015 never tied pax charge to driver pay. Drivers were always paid based on the rate table of their city, its just they always charged pax based on the same rate table but there is no contractual obgligation to have done so.
> 
> ...


I think you need to read the old contract a little better.
The contract clearly tied what the passengers paid to the driver's pay, it is the basis of the Uber model so they are not categorized as a "transportation company". What the passengers paid, they paid to the drivers, NOT TO UBER, then the drivers paid a fee to Uber for the two services that they provide, connecting passengers to drivers and payment processing.
By keeping the difference, Uber violated the agreement, it is very clear if you read the contract well.
The new contract put Uber into the transportation category, specially since they have full control of the prices.
In the airline industry, which is part of the transportation industry, companies like Expedia are real middle men, and they do not control the transportation part of it nor the pricing of it, only their commission.



steveK2016 said:


> You are not driving for Uber. You are driving for Tom Hardy Transportation Inc. Uber provides an app that connects people who needs a ride to Tom Hardy Transporation Inc. If you do not like the terms of use for this lead generation for your transporation business, you are free to use any other option for generating leada for your business
> Priceline is entitled to charge what they want, but they don't have control over the price of transportation, the airlines do.
> 
> The contract from december 2015 never tied pax charge to driver pay. Drivers were always paid based on the rate table of their city, its just they always charged pax based on the same rate table but there is no contractual obgligation to have done so.
> ...


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Too Many Miles said:


> I think you need to read the old contract a little better.
> The contract clearly tied what the passengers paid to the driver's pay, it is the basis of the Uber model so they are not categorized as a "transportation company". What the passengers paid, they paid to the drivers, NOT TO UBER, then the drivers paid a fee to Uber for the two services that they provide, connecting passengers to drivers and payment processing.
> By keeping the difference, Uber violated the agreement, it is very clear if you read the contract well.
> The new contract put Uber into the transportation category, specially since they have full control of the prices.
> In the airline industry, which is part of the transportation industry, companies like Expedia are real middle men, and they do not control the transportation part of it nor the pricing of it, only their commission.


Incorrect. The wording says anything paid to driver from uber would be considered as if paid direct from pax but it never says the the payment from pax goes to the driver less commission.

So if uber pays you $20, per contract, its considered a payment to you from the pax but that doesn't mean that is what the pax had paid for the entire use of the service.

Its like me saying anything I say consider it coming from Uber. Uber didnt say anything and may be saying much more, but as far as me and you, whatever I do say is to be considered coming from Uber.

Likewise anything uber gives you, in part or in whole, is to be considered as if given to you directly from the pax. No where in there does it say everything the pax paid is to be paid to the driver, it simply does not say that and you cannot add meaning between the lines of a contract.


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Incorrect. The wording says anything paid to driver from uber would be considered as if paid direct from pax but it never says the the payment from pax goes to the driver less commission.
> 
> So if uber pays you $20, per contract, its considered a payment to you from the pax but that doesn't mean that is what the pax had paid for the entire use of the service.
> 
> ...


You obviously did not read the old contract, it was pretty clear.
You can search other postings where it was well explained for the mayority that could not understand it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Too Many Miles said:


> You obviously did not read the old contract, it was pretty clear.
> You can search other postings where it was well explained for the mayority that could not understand it.


If you are talking about the contract prior to december 2015, you are correct. No one has provided that contract. After december 2015 is written exactly as I described it. Where in that contract does it explicitly state that what the pax pays is what the driver is to be paid. It does not say that.

To be considered a payment from the pax is not saying what you think it says.


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> If you are talking about the contract prior to december 2015, you are correct. No one has provided that contract. After december 2015 is written exactly as I described it. Where in that contract does it explicitly state that what the pax pays is what the driver is to be paid. It does not say that.
> 
> To be considered a payment from the pax is not saying what you think it says.


Ok, unfortunately the tablet where I have all the information is being serviced by Samsung and hopefully they won't deleted but here is the part from the rider's agreement that explains it (it was changed in March with the upfront pricing but a month before the drver's TOC was changed):
"Charges you incurred will be owed directly to third party providers, and Uber will collect payment of those charges from you, on the third party provider's behalf as their limited payment collection agent and payment of charges shall be considered the same as payment made directly by you to the third party provider."

I am trying to find the previous TOC for drivers.


----------



## Too Many Miles (Jan 26, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> If you are talking about the contract prior to december 2015, you are correct. No one has provided that contract. After december 2015 is written exactly as I described it. Where in that contract does it explicitly state that what the pax pays is what the driver is to be paid. It does not say that.
> 
> To be considered a payment from the pax is not saying what you think it says.


Can you then explain the reason for the 1099K?


----------



## Drivincrazy (Feb 14, 2016)

In the 12/11/15 TSA, section 4, there is no mention of a _driver excluded fare..._ also known as "upfront fare". That's exactly what it is. Uber wanted more money for themselves and decided it could be wrangled from driver pay...over and above previous single fare. The word
"Fares" is not found in the agreement in section 4.


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

If the next hearing is still set for December 1. I hope this story gets some major national news headlines. With the Uber hack still a hot topic hopefully that helps the public's interest.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

MHR said:


> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/
> *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 DAVID KRAVETS - 9/18/2017
> ...


We all moan and gripe that Uber is being unfair with driver's pay. Then do something about it! Create a Uber Driver's Association, a U.S. Driver's Guild or something on that order where drivers have a voice in our "employment". As long as there are no voices for drivers, UBer/Lyft, etc. will do as they please, without regards to driver's well being (no matter what they say).
The booking fee, they tell us, goes to support the local operation.
Their commission or "service fee" goes to the company
We, the drivers, get the left overs calculated by miles and time.
Sometimes, as shown on the trip detail, the company looses a few bucks.
Most of the time the company makes 30% to 50% of the trip total.
My solution :
Make a nation-wide base fare, mileage and time amount, no matter where the trip takes place ($1.75/mile, $.35/minute)
Uber/Lyft should make all trips profitable! No losses
A Driver's Guild could force them to do things, like it did in New York. (tips, etc.)
Until drivers have a voice in the operations of the government and Uber/Lyft, we are at their mercy. AND FOR ANYONE TO SAY "GO DO SOMETHING ELSE" is just a jerk!!!


----------

