# Uber promotion charging drivers a fee to earn more



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)




----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

is this on top of surges ?

let's say you make 1000 for the week, obviously you can't count bonuses since this is only per ride, you will get 330 more, minus 115 and you got 215 more for the week which isn't worth the risk of you possibly not being able to finish the week with 1000 in rides

but if you normally make more than 1000, not including bonuses it might be a good deal


----------



## Aztek98 (Jul 23, 2015)

Lol


----------



## TimyTim (May 26, 2017)

Just wow. Unbelievable. I'm on my way of this whole gig economy soon. Can't wait.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

The FTC and various other regulatory agencies are gonna LOVE this. Not to mention plaintiff's attorneys...


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

OMG....this HAS to be a farce...

Instead of raising rates...

They want us to buy in...

To get those few extra bucks...

That we NEED to make money...

AM I ON CANDID CAMERA...???

Rakos









PS. The monkey gods are laughing...


----------



## kittenC (Sep 21, 2017)

This a joke. Right?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

lol pathetic. Let's be clear about what this is. This is a way for boober to enslave stupid new drivers, similar to the leasing scam. I would bet that, like lyft and their incentives, once the driver gets closer to the point of breaking even or coming out ahead they will find business dramatically slowing.

Boober will hope the driver gets frustrated and goes home which will either earn them money or cost them very little to have you on the rd accepting every pathetic pool they throw your way



uberdriverfornow said:


> is this on top of surges ?
> 
> let's say you make 1000 for the week, obviously you can't count bonuses since this is only per ride, you will get 330 more, minus 115 and you got 215 more for the week which isn't worth the risk of you possibly not being able to finish the week with 1000 in rides
> 
> but if you normally make more than 1000, not including bonuses it might be a good deal


They know the vast majority of drivers don't do this full time and are too stupid to figure out the math. This is only a deal if you do it full time.....but then again there's nothing stopping them from slowing down the amount of requests they give you as you try to work longer to make it a deal in your favor


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

I stated this in the "Houston" forum, and I'll repeat it here --

You give Uber $115 and all you've got to do is make $345 before the profit kicks in?

This is the same Uber that not only controls the algorithms that determine which driver gets which ride, but has also used software to spy on drivers and passengers (God View), steal business from their competitors (Hell), and stymie law enforcement (Greyball) to such an extent that they're in danger of losing their license to operate in London because of their dubious business practices?

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that!


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Spotscat said:


> I stated this in the "Houston" forum, and I'll repeat it here --
> 
> You give Uber $115 and all you've got to do is make $345 before the profit kicks in?
> 
> ...


Exactly. They are NOT to be trusted. Anything they do, they do for themselves and likely have data to ensure it works for them......except for the ******s who ran the leasing program.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

This, on average, will probably amount to a 1.25X quest. The beauty of it for Uber is that the driver is incentivized to take as many trips as humanly possible to get a return on their investment.


----------



## PettyCab (Apr 2, 2017)

Soon they will be offering high interest payday loans.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

I guess the fee is different from market to market, because I saw another one that was $70 for 33% more.

*IF* the program is managed honestly, this could be a good thing for full-time drivers. But that is a *big IF*, and you also have to be careful with your math.

A full-timer grossing $1,000 per week and paying $115 would gain $330 and net +$215 after the $115 is deducted. There is a risk involved in that math: you're betting $115 in order to hopefully make $215.

I'm a part-timer, and I'd have to think long and hard before signing up for one of those deals. Not that I couldn't break even, but is it worth the risk for me? Probably not.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Pay to play never goes well.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

MHR said:


> Pay to play never goes well.


Works GREAT in Chicago! The entire governmental system there is based on pay to play.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

actually, how the hell do you come out ahead by doing only $349 ???


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> actually, how the hell do you come out ahead by doing only $349 ???


$349 * 33% = $115.17. You would "make" 17 cents!

If that's not livin' the dream, I don't know what is!


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

By opting in, you will only get long pings. Gamblers never beat the house.


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

njn said:


> Gamblers never beat the house.


Drivers are losers to UNCONDITIONALLY give $115 to Fuber.
Fuber is a winner to CONDITIONALLY send the pings to drivers,


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Wow....just wow. Taking a page out of Amazon Prime yet no real advantages long term.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

It's kind of like playing roulette at a crooked wheel.
You _could _still win - a little.
Or lose - a lot.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Uber is migrating to a subscription based business model. $35/week for access to app. $70/week for 10% bonus. $105/week for a 25% bonus.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

JimKE said:


> I guess the fee is different from market to market, because I saw another one that was $70 for 33% more.
> 
> *IF* the program is managed honestly, this could be a good thing for full-time drivers. But that is a *big IF*, and you also have to be careful with your math.
> 
> ...


If I as a full time driver gross $1000 in the week that's going to be due to many instances of surge/boost

This plan would be ON TOP of that? Hmmm....


----------



## excel2345 (Dec 14, 2015)

Another thing not mentioned, Ubers cut goes up 33% on the drivers gross but doesn't add in any extra money Uber charges the passengers!


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

180 Days Of Scams strikes again.


----------



## POOLKiller (Oct 5, 2016)

Fuber is the new generation of prostitution. Pay to get ****ed!


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

I quit


----------



## Mazda3 (Jun 21, 2014)

Yeah. I don't trust the algorithm now. I know I'll get screwed if I sign up. And Uber can always add another $2 to every ride that I do to make up for their loss. It's crooked as hell.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


>


Sounds like a fake surge!

I wonder how many will chase it?


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

Fake News!


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

MHR said:


> Pay to play never goes well.


Taxi drivers have to pay to play. Fübr doesn't.
Do you think they can actually be trusted?


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


>


*Uber asks drivers to pay $115 for a shot at extra Halloween earnings*
https://thenextweb.com/tech/2017/10/19/uber-asks-drivers-pay-115-shot-extra-halloween-earnings/

A promotion from Uber offering drivers the chance to earn a 33 percent earnings boost in exchange for an upfront payment of $115 is causing controversy, and has lead some to accuse the controversial ridesharing company of charging drivers to work.
One damning critique, from NYC-based technology ethnographer Alex Rosenblat, argues that the format of the offer is deceptive, as the headline ("Celebrate Halloween early by earning 33% more") is larger and bolder than the rest of the copy, which clarifies that this is at the expense of $115 from the previous week's earnings. She also mentions that the format of the promotion is similar to other Uber driver promotions, where drivers don't have to pay in order to take part.

Uber states that if drivers earn more than $349 in a week, they'll ultimately come out on top and make a profit. Given that Halloween is party season, and people are more likely to leave their cars at home in order to go drink, this doesn't seem like a particularly insurmountable number. Indeed, an Uber representative I spoke to described it as "one of the busiest nights of the year."

But obviously, there's an element of risk involved. There's no iron-clad guarantee that they'll make that money back. What if their car breaks down at the start of the week, or business is unpredictably slow, either due to some inclement weather, or a saturation of available drivers, all chasing the extra bonus?

Before we get hyped up, it's worth clarifying a few points about the promotion.


It's only taking place in a handful of markets.
It's not permanent.
The experiment is an undertaking between Uber and two researchers at MIT. According to an Uber representative, the study looks at "the value of flexibility, specifically the flexibility that the Uber app offers by comparing it to taxi-like lease models where you pay an upfront 'fee' rather than as a function of the work you do"
It's opt-in. There's no obligation to take part, at all.
*Drivers are informed that they're taking part in an experiment, via the terms and conditions.*
Uber has been pretty transparent. You can actually read the research paper associated with this experiment here. It costs $5, and I just got a copy for free, as the National Bureau of Economic Research offers free access to the press. That said, it's a pretty dense piece of academic writing, and I haven't been able to fully digest it yet. If there's anything particularly interesting in it, I'll update this post.
*The experiment had to receive approval from MIT's Institutional Review Board.*
I'm not sure I agree with Rosenblat's argument that the promotion is deceptive. The only way you could be deceived is if you merely read the headline, and then pressed "okay." The copy is plainly written, straightforward, and is explicit about the nature of the agreement. The very first sentence reads "Buy a week of accelerated earnings for $115." The only thing that isn't immediately clear is that drivers are taking part in an experiment.

As a regular reader of the /r/uberdrivers subreddit, I agree that the format of the promotion matches closely the design previous Uber promos. Is that because Uber is deliberately attempting to muddy the waters, or because Uber has a distinct branding and design language that it uses across the entirety of its digital real estate? Personally speaking, I'm inclined to think the latter.

Rosenblat, quite reasonably, makes the case that there's something very troubling about the idea of an company experimenting with someone's income. In his post, she argues:

"When Uber leverages its ongoing employment relationship with its drivers to experiment with their livelihoods for academic research purposes, it also raises a few questions and concerns regarding Uber's power over these research subjects."

I spoke to her over Twitter, where she clarified further what she meant by this:

"There's a vast information and power asymmetry between Uber and its drivers, and promoting certain pay schema where Uber controls dispatch for the rides you will receive, comparative promotions, and your eligibility to work makes this less of a straight forward employment auction, and more of a gamble."

This element of a gamble doesn't sit easy with Rosenblat, who correctly pointed out that circumstances can emerge that rob people of not only the chance to make the bonus, but also the $115 upfront fee. "If you're ill that week, or something renders you unavailable, you lose the down payment to afford flexibility. It strikes me as an odd exercise to induce drivers to sign up for shifts that contract the rhetorical terms of the job."

Rosenblat acknowledges that Uber is no stranger to experimenting (or indeed, adjusting) the terms and price of its service. This is just a continuation of that trend, and may prove beneficial for certain drivers. "Uber and others, including its competitors, experiment with pay incentives all the time," she said. "And it may well be that having a variety of options for work contract configurations benefits the diverse motivations drivers have to do this job."

That, I think, is the most salient point of all. Uber's workforce of drivers is as diverse as it is massive, and judging by the significant attrition rates, the current one-size-fits-all model isn't working. Perhaps this academic research is a necessary evil in order to ensure that the company is able to serve not only seasoned full-time veterans, but also casual drivers, who take to the streets as part of their side-hustle, in order to earn a bit extra money.

I reached out to Uber for comment on this story. A spokesperson said: "Drivers tell us that they value the ability to choose when, where and how long to work. This academic study is part of broader efforts to better understand the extent to which drivers benefit from Uber's flexible work model in quantitative terms."

It's worth reminding ourselves that this is just a small experiment, taking place over a short period of time in just a couple of the markets that Uber serves. But I do worry about the implications about what happens if this experiment is successful, because it could see Uber pursue a more aggressive gambling element to its business model. That's not always going to work out for the driver.

The problem with gambling is that the house always wins. Always. And in this instance, Uber is the house.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

This is hilarious. You have to give them credit. This is a bit more creative than the up front pricing scheme to [email protected]$& over drivers.

#fübrn


----------



## Mazda3 (Jun 21, 2014)

If I'm paying out money, I'm probably not going to be running Lyft.


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

*I just wanted to say here to the UP.net Admins:*

*EXCELLENT CHOICE OF PIC FOR THIS FEATURED THREAD!! *
(i_n case you all haven't seen it yet.....looks like a pic of the *MAFIA* to me!_)


----------



## Duber12 (Dec 18, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


>


What market is this?
Thanks.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> Uber is now the pimp and the driver is the hoe. Which makes the passenger the john.


Now? You are now just seeing this?


----------



## OoberrVegas (Jun 15, 2017)

This isn't good on any level even if drivers make more in the long run it's still insane that Uber thinks it ok to offer such a thing. 

How about increasing the rates and not charging me to do so. If a triditional job tried such a thing it would have law suits up the ass.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme (Jul 27, 2014)

well to sum it up: Uber screws drivers in the bum. With no lube. Now Uber offers you to lube you for a fee. But in the end you're still being screwed... in the bum!


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

excel2345 said:


> Another thing not mentioned, Ubers cut goes up 33% on the drivers gross but doesn't add in any extra money Uber charges the passengers!


Explain?


----------



## the surge within me (Jun 1, 2017)

njn said:


> Uber is migrating to a subscription based business model. $35/week for access to app. $70/week for 10% bonus. $105/week for a 25% bonus.


Pleaseeeee don't give Dara and Co. any more ideas!!!!!!


----------



## excel2345 (Dec 14, 2015)

2Cents said:


> Explain?


If the increase to driver is shown as time and mileage increase the amount Uber will collect as commission will be 33% higher than what would occur under the existing pricing.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

excel2345 said:


> If the increase to driver is shown as time and mileage increase the amount Uber will collect as commission will be 33% higher than what would occur under the existing pricing.


But pax isn't paying 33% more. So where is uber getting the money from?


----------



## Okphillip (Feb 6, 2017)

Each week I am close and closer to calling it quits with Uber AND Lyft! The personal liability potential alone may not be worth it!


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


>


Is this being offered in Minneapolis?



Spotscat said:


> I stated this in the "Houston" forum, and I'll repeat it here --
> 
> You give Uber $115 and all you've got to do is make $345 before the profit kicks in?
> 
> ...


There's no way to know until someone actually tries this out. It could be a very smart way for Uber to lock up many top full time drivers so they don't drive for Lyft that week.


----------



## Whothought (Jan 18, 2017)

PrestonT said:


> This, on average, will probably amount to a 1.25X quest. The beauty of it for Uber is that the driver is incentivized to take as many trips as humanly possible to get a return on their investment.


=ANT


----------



## Pythonphile (Sep 23, 2017)

The only Halloween related thing I got was asking me if I would be available that weekend, it said nothing of increased earnings, so I indicated that I'd go out that weekend.


----------



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

JimKE said:


> I guess the fee is different from market to market, because I saw another one that was $70 for 33% more.
> 
> *IF* the program is managed honestly, this could be a good thing for full-time drivers. But that is a *big IF*, and you also have to be careful with your math.
> 
> ...


What you're missing is that if you're Ubering correctly, a large proportion of the trips you accept will be surges _anyway_. Anybody who actually pays Uber for surges is a complete idiot.


----------



## bestpals (Aug 22, 2015)

I told you a few years back they would eventually get you to pay them to drive for them. This is one step before that. Anyone who falls for this crap knowing they control what trips you get will wind up being the fool. Yeah a few might make some money, they would have to allow that otherwise this would be an illegal scheme. But I guarantee a vast majority will lose money and uber will be the big winner and laugh all the way to the bank. Then you know what, they will come up with another scheme and screw more drivers. But you will never learn unless you all quit, which will never happen. 180 days of screwing the driver, then another 180 days of screwing the driver even more but most drivers will say "Harder, Harder. I only do this for fun anyway."


----------



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

bestpals said:


> I told you a few years back they would eventually get you to pay them to drive for them. This is one step before that. Anyone who falls for this crap knowing they control what trips you get will wind up being the fool. Yeah a few might make some money, they would have to allow that otherwise this would be an illegal scheme. But I guarantee a vast majority will lose money and uber will be the big winner and laugh all the way to the bank. Then you know what, they will come up with another scheme and screw more drivers. But you will never learn unless you all quit, which will never happen. 180 days of screwing the driver, then another 180 days of screwing the driver even more but most drivers will say "Harder, Harder. I only do this for fun anyway."


Uber must be trained by drivers that the notion of _us_ paying _them_ for work or for preferential work is totally unacceptable. If I found out that they were pushing this scam here in this city I would boycott them for that week and tell them that they had been given a 7 day time out to reconsider their behavior. If a large enough number of drivers did this and went over to Lyft that week, the drivers would feel no loss - Lyft would surge heavily under the weight of requests from pax who are normally Uber pax, unable to get rides.


----------



## canyon (Dec 22, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


>


That's amazing to me. Instead of just raising rates they play these ridiculous game knowing in the end its the driver that loses. What a pos company.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Uber is asking us to pay for the "privilege" of driving for $1,40 the mile (based on the fares in my market) less its take. That would be paying for the "privilege" of driving for 1986 cab rates _*without*_ taking into consideration Uber's take. Why should I pay to drive for rates that are over thirty years out of date?

Uber wants you to pay to drive on a permenent 1,33 surge factor. Make the proposition to me on a 3,3 surge and we can discuss it.

A 1,33 surge factor is less than a non-starter.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

goneubering said:


> It could be a very smart way for Uber to lock up many top full time drivers so they don't drive for Lyft that week.


Yup. And Lyft is trying to lock up drivers with this new trick


----------



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

Cableguynoe said:


> Yup. And Lyft is trying to lock up drivers with this new trick
> View attachment 168867


It's great to see that Lyft appreciates that it has to pay for driver loyalty, unlike Uber's belief that drivers should pay them, lol.

Of course, interest in this bonus scheme will depend on its monetary value. It's probably crap, but at least it's Lyft paying drivers and not Uber asking drivers to pay them.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The problem with Lyft is that you get these never ending Lines. You just can not be finished with the job.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The problem with Lyft is that you get these never ending Lines. You just can not be finished with the job.


Or you're trying to keep the streak going and here comes the 18 minute away ping


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks MIT. Time for the Boston drivers to boycott the MIT campus

http://mashable.com/2017/10/20/uber-pay-to-work/#JZhMcxEndiqD


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Psychological

#uberwarfareatitsfinest

#beancountersatitagain

#carrotgrabberanonymous

Haha Boober. I got back to back 30 mile trips @ 40% from Lyft and I didn't have to BUY into anything. So the joke is on you.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Cableguynoe said:


> Or you're trying to keep the streak going and here comes the 18 minute away ping


Exactly. However you can always accept the trip and sit parked and wait for them to cancel


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Maybe I'm ignorant or Smells like;

*Racketeering*, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. *Racketeering* as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> What you're missing is that if you're Ubering correctly, a large proportion of the trips you accept will be surges _anyway_. Anybody who actually pays Uber for surges is a complete idiot.


The ad doesn't read that way. The 33% should be on top of surges.


----------



## Uberingdude (May 29, 2017)

I remember a skip from the 1970s comedy SCTV did a parody of The Grapes of Wrath. The greedy employer I was discussing the terms of payment to the protagonist: on the first day we can pay you only $0.01 a day, tomorrow we can only pay you half a cent for the day, and after that you will have to pay me!

Uber is totally reminds me of this now!

Here it is:

At 7.00


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


>


Perfect Cover Art for this discussion on

UBER RACKETEERING !


----------



## Uberingdude (May 29, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Perfect Cover Art for this discussion on
> 
> UBER RACKETEERING !


I did not think it was possible to hate Uber more than I already do. It's sad that they View the Helloween traffic boom as being too much revenue for their lowly drivers.


----------



## david joe (Sep 8, 2017)

you know this is just a prequel to the main event... new year's day.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Uberingdude said:


> I did not think it was possible to hate Uber more than I already do. It's sad that they View the Helloween traffic boom as being too much revenue for their lowly drivers.


We should surround corporate and set it ablaze.



david joe said:


> you know this is just a prequel to the main event... new year's day.


Skinned alive beneath saline drip sounds deserving for them.



Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Maybe I'm ignorant or Smells like;
> 
> *Racketeering*, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. *Racketeering* as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.


Get your Congressman on it !

The Feds. Are Already all over Uber.

They just dont know how to act right !



uberdriverfornow said:


> is this on top of surges ?
> 
> let's say you make 1000 for the week, obviously you can't count bonuses since this is only per ride, you will get 330 more, minus 115 and you got 215 more for the week which isn't worth the risk of you possibly not being able to finish the week with 1000 in rides
> 
> but if you normally make more than 1000, not including bonuses it might be a good deal


You encourage this desperate act of Uber SHAKING DOWN DRIVERS ?

CORRUPT RACKETEERING ?

ASSURING NO CHANCE OF FAIRNESS UNLESS YOU PAY UBER OFF
ON TOP OF WHAT THEY STEAL FROM US !

Shame on you !



Spotscat said:


> I stated this in the "Houston" forum, and I'll repeat it here --
> 
> You give Uber $115 and all you've got to do is make $345 before the profit kicks in?
> 
> ...


BURN IT !

Burn IT ALIVE !



JimKE said:


> I guess the fee is different from market to market, because I saw another one that was $70 for 33% more.
> 
> *IF* the program is managed honestly, this could be a good thing for full-time drivers. But that is a *big IF*, and you also have to be careful with your math.
> 
> ...


Santa claus will bring you a goose that lays golden eggs long before uber even considers and rejects a concept of honesty.



njn said:


> Uber is migrating to a subscription based business model. $35/week for access to app. $70/week for 10% bonus. $105/week for a 25% bonus.


Uber needs to DIE.

NOW


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Rakos said:


> OMG....this HAS to be a farce...
> 
> Instead of raising rates...
> 
> ...


This company has no clue !


----------



## Ogbootsy (Sep 12, 2016)

The House Never.... Ever.ever...... Eva.. Lose


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Ogbootsy said:


> The House Never.... Ever.ever...... Eva.. Lose


And Casinos that rape players close quickly.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Cableguynoe said:


> But pax isn't paying 33% more. So where is uber getting the money from?


Nowhere. Since no one has mentioned the math I will.

1.33 X 75% = .9975 ~1

It just turns a 25% commission account into a 0%.

No extra charges to pax. They still make their upfront scam money.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

dirtylee said:


> Nowhere. Since no one has mentioned the math I will.
> 
> 1.33 X 75% = .9975 ~1
> 
> ...


Need a Driver march on Uber Corporate with FULL MEDIA COVERAGE.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Some more math since nearly all of you are math challenged.

You at 25% commission only get paid 37.5% of what a taxi driver makes.

So let's say a
taxi charges $100 for trip based on time/mileage.
Uber = half price of taxi, so $50 based on time/mileage.
Your 75% cut is $37.50

You still have to pay for insurance, gas, & your car from your cut. 

UBER X IS A SCAM


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

dirtylee said:


> Some more math since nearly all of you are math challenged.
> 
> You at 25% commission only get paid 37.5% of what a taxi driver makes.
> 
> ...


Truth


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

LYFT IS ALSO A SCAM!!!

SCAM
SCAM
SCAM
SCAM
SCAM

Scams all the way down!!!


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


>


Whoah, this changes the whole dynamic, what, we are in game of chance territory now? I'd love to see what Riordin lawyer would say about this.


----------



## 125928 (Oct 5, 2017)

Mazda3 said:


> If I'm paying out money, I'm probably not going to be running Lyft.


maybe this is Ubers way to have drivers stick to one platform.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> We should surround corporate and set it ablaze.
> 
> Skinned alive beneath saline drip sounds deserving for them.
> 
> ...


Have you gone completely out of your freakin mind?????? Whether you love Uber or hate Uber you can't threaten arson!! Get real or just go away.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

excel2345 said:


> If the increase to driver is shown as time and mileage increase the amount Uber will collect as commission will be 33% higher than what would occur under the existing pricing.


No it would just go under promotions?



Uberingdude said:


> I remember a skip from the 1970s comedy SCTV did a parody of The Grapes of Wrath. The greedy employer I was discussing the terms of payment to the protagonist: on the first day we can pay you only $0.01 a day, tomorrow we can only pay you half a cent for the day, and after that you will have to pay me!
> 
> Uber is totally reminds me of this now!
> 
> ...


I got paid $.01 for a weeks worth of my efforts...


----------



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

goneubering said:


> The ad doesn't read that way. The 33% should be on top of surges.


I didn't say that this was instead of surges. But it is, in effect, paying for a surge. Think a couple of levels deeper:

In relation to driver pay, Uber always alters the deal over time, making its offering progressively worse. It happens when Uber starts in a new city. They start drivers off with a relatively attractive miles/minute rate and then they slowly, bit by bit, whittle it down via successive pay cuts. It also happens with their bonuses. What used to be $500 for 120 rides ($4.16/ride) has now been whittled down. The latest offer I got was $140 for 70 rides ($2.00/ride). The same would happen with this new buy-a-surge scam. Uber would up the asking price that drivers pay and decrease the multiplier on offer.

In any case, this would condition drivers into paying for higher pay. Which is ridiculous. Their hope is to lock drivers in and have them committed to doing as many rides as possible in order to try to recoup the "purchase price" of this scam. More drivers working longer hours is a surge suppressant, so what this could mean is that this scam will replace surge and itself further become a pay-for-surge model.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

goneubering said:


> Have you gone completely out of your freakin mind?????? Whether you love Uber or hate Uber you can't threaten arson!! Get real or just go away.


Sure one can. It's not until one makes good on that when it becomes a problem.

It's like the city knows the intersection has a major problem. Nothing gets done until the corporate dog gets killed.

Think Scrooge and little Timmy.

Uber is devoid of emotions.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Sure one can. It's not until one makes good on that when it becomes a problem.
> 
> It's like the city knows the intersection has a major problem. Nothing gets done until the corporate dog gets killed.
> 
> ...


Not true. Don't encourage stupid behavior. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic....edia-users-arrested-for-what-they-said-online

8 Social Media Users Arrested For What They Said Online


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks fellow Boston drivers for partipating in this horrible experiment. 
Soon enough, Uber will require all drivers to pay them before driving.

https://qz.com/1105881/uber-is-asking-drivers-to-make-a-downpayment-on-their-future-earnings/


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

Pay-to-surge is not only in Boston but also Houston as well. Any other cities?


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

Uber: The New Amway


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> *Uber promotion charging drivers a fee to earn more*


You pay your $115 with great expectations of a big week.
And when it comes time to collect on the bet, you can probably expect a message very similar to this:


----------



## the surge within me (Jun 1, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> You pay your $115 with great expectations of a big week.
> And when it comes time to collect on the bet, you can probably expect a message very similar to this:
> 
> View attachment 169094


SMH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> You pay your $115 with great expectations of a big week.
> And when it comes time to collect on the bet, you can probably expect a message very similar to this:
> 
> View attachment 169094


Wow. Total fukery. What we've all come to expect from Uber. They will get theirs soon. Just wait and see.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I didn't say that this was instead of surges. But it is, in effect, paying for a surge. Think a couple of levels deeper:
> 
> In relation to driver pay, Uber always alters the deal over time, making its offering progressively worse. It happens when Uber starts in a new city. They start drivers off with a relatively attractive miles/minute rate and then they slowly, bit by bit, whittle it down via successive pay cuts. It also happens with their bonuses. What used to be $500 for 120 rides ($4.16/ride) has now been whittled down. The latest offer I got was $140 for 70 rides ($2.00/ride). The same would happen with this new buy-a-surge scam. Uber would up the asking price that drivers pay and decrease the multiplier on offer.
> 
> In any case, this would condition drivers into paying for higher pay. Which is ridiculous. Their hope is to lock drivers in and have them committed to doing as many rides as possible in order to try to recoup the "purchase price" of this scam. More drivers working longer hours is a surge suppressant, so what this could mean is that this scam will replace surge and itself further become a pay-for-surge model.


Maybe it's to reward top performers. It does not work for part timers.


----------



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

goneubering said:


> Maybe it's to reward top performers. It does not work for part timers.


Lol


----------



## Gwoae (Aug 12, 2017)

Ok so maybe I am cynical or just stupid, maybe both? Nothing in this promo is hidden. They give you the terms and you can elect to take it or not to take it. Sure they will probably come out ahead but who's fault is that if you are the one to lose money? You only need to do $400 in a week to break even. Sure there will be times where you breal down or get sick and they are counting on that. I make 400 really without trying. Give me this promo where I make more then I am going to sit down make a plan and execute it to make more money.

People have to realize that we are running a business. To be successful you can't just get into your car and start driving. I catalog evrrything that I do and analyze it at the end of the week. I make adjustments to maximize earnings, a promo like this could do just that with the right planning.


----------



## roadman (Nov 14, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> But pax isn't paying 33% more. So where is uber getting the money from?


oh yes they are already paying more. In some cases pax is paying 100% more. I have done trips where uber takes more then 50% of the money.


----------



## excel2345 (Dec 14, 2015)

Cableguynoe said:


> But pax isn't paying 33% more. So where is uber getting the money from?


Current 25% fee, booking fee, the $115 upfront and add a dollar or two onto each guaranteed fare should cover it. Remember, this is a test to see if drivers will pay for the privilege of driving.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> Fake News!


The sad part is, it is real.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

At this point in Uber's "development", I'm rooting for the robots to take over. How much worse could it be?


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

excel2345 said:


> Remember, this is a test to see if drivers will pay for the privilege of driving.


We'll never know how many actually signed up for this, but it'll be interesting when some here that do it post their results. 
I'm sure there will be some that will really benefit from this. The majority won't. 
But it will just take a few screen shots to convince others to do it next time UBER does this.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

WaveRunner1 said:


> Wow. Total fukery. What we've all come to expect from Uber. They will get theirs soon. Just wait and see.


They should of not casted doubt from the beginning. If you enlist this much doubt in the drivers minds, then as a company; you are not to be trusted.

#fübrn


----------



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

2Cents said:


> They should of not casted doubt from the beginning. If you enlist this much doubt in the drivers minds, then as a company; you are not to be trusted.
> 
> #fübrn


Your UserID promises 2 cents yet your avatar is only 1 cent. I think you may have been involved with Uber too long.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

It's a double entendres. I made one cent for two weeks in a row after feverishly working for Fübr... .02 total...
Plus I like to chime in.


#fübrn


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Gwoae said:


> Ok so maybe I am cynical or just stupid, maybe both? Nothing in this promo is hidden. They give you the terms and you can elect to take it or not to take it. Sure they will probably come out ahead but who's fault is that if you are the one to lose money? You only need to do $400 in a week to break even. Sure there will be times where you breal down or get sick and they are counting on that. I make 400 really without trying. Give me this promo where I make more then I am going to sit down make a plan and execute it to make more money.
> 
> People have to realize that we are running a business. To be successful you can't just get into your car and start driving. I catalog evrrything that I do and analyze it at the end of the week. I make adjustments to maximize earnings, a promo like this could do just that with the right planning.


That's correct but I still haven't seen any driver on this forum who has received the special offer personally.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Your UserID promises 2 cents yet your avatar is only 1 cent. I think you may have been involved with Uber too long.


Yeah, it just doesn't make cents.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Pay to Play! Did Uber hire Hillary Clinton as new CEO?


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

WaveRunner1 said:


> Uber: The New Amway


TRICK or TREAT, kids


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

Adieu said:


> TRICK or TREAT, kids


More like "Trick OR Scam"


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

WaveRunner1 said:


> More like "Trick OR Scam"


Funny part is....not necessarily.

It looks like the original plan WAS "subscription fee & for 100% of fare receipts vs. commission"



Uber's Guber said:


> Pay to Play! Did Uber hire Hillary Clinton as new CEO?


They royally mismarketed it.

As someone above mentioned, ~0.75 * 1.33 ~= 1.0

Idgits SHOULD have pitched it as:

"Exciting Offer!

Since we here at Fuber are ever trying to innovate, for one week only we are offerring you the option to participate in a new fee structure (or not). It is your choice.

Option 1 (old): a commission-like structure where Uber withholds fees on a per-ride basis.

Option 2, paid subscription: pay $115, receive 100% of what customers pay for rides (minus SRF) for the week."

...wonder if legal shot down a planned "pay subscription, get 100%" wording as too risky? Or if the MIT eggheads THOUGHT that was the offer on the table, since they weren't aware of the "upfront" scammage


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Adieu said:


> Funny part is....not necessarily.
> It looks like the original plan WAS "subscription fee & for 100% of fare receipts vs. commission"
> ...wonder if legal shot down a planned "pay subscription, get 100%" wording as too risky?


Ya know, in California Real Estate, the relationship between Broker and Associate is unique. ONE of the models that brokerages use is the 100% model. You pay $1000 per month plus a percentage of the "staff overhead". You keep 100% of your commissions. The OTHER one is a percentage of commish. A shiney newbie will be lucky to get a 50% offer. A seasoned agent with a proven track record may get 80% or even 90%. But, if you're making $10k a month, you don't wanna pay 20% or two grand to your broker -- the best deal for you is the 100% deal and you only pay him one grand. 
This is the kind of math a Realtor can do ON the fly, during a commish negotiation. LoL

Isn't that kind of a hybrid of what Uber is offering?

You guys are kind of thinking like employees. Think like a business owner and RUN, *RUN, RUN AWAY!*
Ya gotta be willing to walk away from a bad deal.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Gwoae said:


> Ok so maybe I am cynical or just stupid, maybe both? Nothing in this promo is hidden. They give you the terms and you can elect to take it or not to take it. Sure they will probably come out ahead but who's fault is that if you are the one to lose money?
> You only need to do $400 in a week to break even. ------/------I make adjustments to maximize earnings, a promo like this could do just that with the right planning.


Nothing is hidden? Über is not trialling this for the benefit of drivers, of that you can be assured. Previously in any trial, the objective has been to either pay the driver less or get the pax to pay more, with the ultimate gain to Über. This latest trial shows a new dimension with the driver being charged - a driver 'service fee'. Okay fine for those who opt-in, but what about those who don't?

In the selected cities, albeit that this is for a limited time, there are going to be two classes of driver. Those who have opted-in and those who haven't. Those who have paid Über for the privilege of driving for them and those who have effectively said, "No thanks Über, you don't deserve my endorsement or trust and you are certainly not getting any more of my money."

Does anyone believe that Über has not set a predetermined goal here? Has there ever been a situation where Über has not bent the rules to achieve a calculated and desired result; and in the process overlooked, hidden or ignored every measure of good governance, propriety and ethical behaviour along the way?

And so, with the two classes of drivers - effectively the 'A class' drivers and then the also-rans - who do you reckon is going to get all the prime trips during this promo?

.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Who is John Galt? said:


> Nothing is hidden? Über is not trialling this for the benefit of drivers, of that you can be assured. Previously in any trial, the objective has been to either pay the driver less or get the pax to pay more, with the ultimate gain to Über. This latest trial shows a new dimension with the driver being charged - a driver 'service fee'. Okay fine for those who opt-in, but what about those who don't?
> 
> In the selected cities, albeit that this is for a limited time, there are going to be two classes of driver. Those who have opted-in and those who haven't. Those who have paid Über for the privilege of driving for them and those who have effectively said, "No thanks Über, you don't deserve my endorsement or trust and you are certainly not getting any more of my money."
> 
> ...


ACTUALLY.... *if* fuber could get ALL drivers on a subscription fee and pass 100% of fares on to drivers, they COULD just go back to being "a software company" and dodge all sorts of expenses and legal problems.

Also theyd get a more brand loyal and far more dedicated and professional "subscriber base" of drivers.

Problem is....they wont do it. Doubts about feasibility & aversion to not having anybody to scam anymore should they succeed will kill the idea.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

JimKE said:


> I guess the fee is different from market to market, because I saw another one that was $70 for 33% more.
> 
> *IF* the program is managed honestly, this could be a good thing for full-time drivers. But that is a *big IF*, and you also have to be careful with your math.
> 
> ...


That's the point. This will never be managed to the point where full time drivers can consistently get it and then consistently make more after the upfront cost. Uber already thought of this angle, and one thing uber never does is net-benefit drivers without benefiting themselves more. Ever.

It's another thing targeted at drivers who probably weren't going to hit that break even anyway, so now they feel increasingly enticed to drive more. And since uber controls things like which drivers see surge when (not at the same time), it will all come into play with this.

Uber is looking more like a pyramid scheme in how it operates business all the time. *Charging people to work for you is a hallmark is a shady business*.

This is possibly the most nefarious trick uber has tried since I've been aware of it.


----------



## JBinPenfield (Sep 14, 2017)

I havn't gotten any such offer. I'm a part timer in Rochester NY. Maybe they target only specific areas/drivers? Not that I'd take the offer anyway.


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> That's the point. This will never be managed to the point where full time drivers can consistently get it and then consistently make more after the upfront cost. Uber already thought of this angle, and one thing uber never does is net-benefit drivers without benefiting themselves more. Ever.
> 
> It's another thing targeted at drivers who probably weren't going to hit that break even anyway, so now they feel increasingly enticed to drive more. And since uber controls things like which drivers see surge when (not at the same time), it will all come into play with this.
> 
> ...


All Uber's promotions have one thing in common. They can send or not send you a ping. They can send a nearby request or a 20-minute away. Simply to say, they control your earning easily. Stop driving is the best way to knock out Uber. Yes, Uber ants can end Uber. Truly be your own boss instead of Uber's slavery.


----------



## BAKAD (Feb 22, 2016)

*WOW Uber is going to academics to get their marketing programs like this one*. What a shame Uber you don't have enough marketing know-how to do your own promotions you have to go to college MIT folks who may have never run a business let alone a successful marketing program.

Article here 

It's not that hard Uber....just raise the prices, clean out the bad drivers, cancel pool rides, stop trying to be public transportation (it does not work for government why should it work for you). Your market share will shrink that okay, you will start making a profit and Lyft will not take over, they are not making any money either so they have to raise prices too.

Where is the NEW CEO why is he letting all these bad ideas get out onto the market? Is Uber that broke he has to worry 100% of his time to raise funds, that could be!


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

Live or die? Go public or bankruptcy? In just 18 months, time will tell. The deadline is March-31-2019


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

What they haven't told you is that Uber will prioritizing pings to those who paid to play. Oh they haven't advertised this part. But it's plausible as they can then have hundreds of drivers coming on here boasting their earnings deltas against everyone else on the same night same market.

Will open the door to future pay to play options for full timers. Welcome to Uber getting into the dispatch fee business, Same as another industry we all like to mimic.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> That's the point. This will never be managed to the point where full time drivers can consistently get it and then consistently make more after the upfront cost. Uber already thought of this angle, and one thing uber never does is net-benefit drivers without benefiting themselves more. Ever.
> 
> It's another thing targeted at drivers who probably weren't going to hit that break even anyway, so now they feel increasingly enticed to drive more. And since uber controls things like which drivers see surge when (not at the same time), it will all come into play with this.
> 
> ...


I have been associated with one of the biggest international real estate brokerage firms in the world for over fifteen years. My agreement with them is that I pay a flat fee per month plus a share of some of the overhead and advertising in return for my association.
I know of a couple of law firms that do that same thing.
It is one of two options. (the part timers would chose the commission split scheme)
I chose that one because it makes me the most money.

How is that different from what Uber is testing?


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

This sounds like an idea ripe with potential for abuse, another ploy to manipulate dumb/desperate full timers (who should not be driving Uber to begin with).

I haven't seen this locally, and if I do, it will likely be the end of my driving for Uber. It's teetering on being unprofitable as it is, but I've gotten convenient extra income from it, but when it becomes a crappy pay-to-play scam, I'm out.

Smart drivers should be looking for better employment right now, or another source of extra income.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> How is that different from what Uber is testing?


Über controls the allocation of rides.


----------



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

UberBastid said:


> You guys are kind of thinking like employees.


That's because we are employees, thinly disguised as independent business owners.


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

njn said:


> Uber is migrating to a subscription based business model. $35/week for access to app. $70/week for 10% bonus. $105/week for a 25% bonus.


How do you know this? If they're making us pay for a monthly subscription, they should change their pricing structure and increase their base. 70 for 10% is awful. I'd need to make $700 on base to break even.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Wow this Uber business is going to get real shady in a hurry. Soon they will go from being just an app to a Taxi dispatcher service. Soon they are going to charge you a weekly fee to use your PTC license.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

outface said:


> All Uber's promotions have one thing in common. They can send or not send you a ping. They can send a nearby request or a 20-minute away. Simply to say, they control your earning easily. Stop driving is the best way to knock out Uber. Yes, Uber ants can end Uber. Truly be your own boss instead of Uber's slavery.


Yep this is a huge problem with a scheme like this. The essential thing with uber is that despite their public claims about how sending pings work, there is no transparency and we don't know if it's actually true. I don't believe there is convincing proof that Uber sends pings it shouldn't (e.g. somebody close to you but it will send to a further person instead), but if you're signed up for this promotion they know they own you for that week. What's to stop them from giving you the crap pings taking you to nowhere?


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

I'll pay 250 a month if they give me 100% of the fare and they take out all boosts an just let it surge. Subscriptions the best method imo because then it seperates themselves and it will lock drivers into only using their service/forcing riders to only use uber cause all the drivers are there altho they want their cake and they want to eat it too so it wont happen


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> I have been associated with one of the biggest international real estate brokerage firms in the world for over fifteen years. My agreement with them is that I pay a flat fee per month plus a share of some of the overhead and advertising in return for my association.
> I know of a couple of law firms that do that same thing.
> It is one of two options. (the part timers would chose the commission split scheme)
> I chose that one because it makes me the most money.
> ...


I know real estate does it. I suppose the main difference here is your business is more transparent. You know if you're being screwed; if the money you paid for that month or year is being trashed because other reps are getting business that you should be getting. You can actively work trying to drum up more business. There is little ability to do that with uber. We have no control over pings other than location. And that is supposed to reward us with a ping but we don't really know.



pomegranite112 said:


> I'll pay 250 a month if they give me 100% of the fare and they take out all boosts an just let it surge. Subscriptions the best method imo because then it seperates themselves and it will lock drivers into only using their service/forcing riders to only use uber cause all the drivers are there altho they want their cake and they want to eat it too so it wont happen


Done justly I can see something to what you're saying. Apparently with taxis for example it's now very hard to be sneaky and send fares to your buddy, so if you're paying a professional fee or whatever else to a company and they are issuing out fares to you, you know what you're getting. But with uber you have no clue. None at all. It's 100% a black hole. There is no oversight, no audit trail, no proof whatsoever that uber is acting in the way they should be. So, you're giving them $115 on a hope and a prayer. A properly regulated business could operate with a subscription in lieu of them taking out a percentage.


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

Now is pay to surge. Next will be pay to drive. Step by step, Uber will make you come. Uber on.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> What's to stop them from giving you the crap pings taking you to nowhere?


They're not stupid. That really bad idea would immediately kill the program.


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

father of unicorns said:


> maybe this is Ubers way to have drivers stick to one platform.


If they are trying to get me to stick with Lyft, then yeah, it's working.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I know real estate does it. I suppose the main difference here is your business is more transparent. You know if you're being screwed; if the money you paid for that month or year is being trashed because other reps are getting business that you should be getting.
> A properly regulated business could operate with a subscription in lieu of them taking out a percentage.


Yes, real estate biz is more transparent - and the graft and illegal referral and 'not who you know, but who you blow' that goes on in a brokerage is clear. And, I have clearly seen it. My choice is to either do the best where I am, or shop for a new broker to work with. 
But, then on the other hand, it's not like there is THAT much of a selection of ride share companies to work for.

Like a brokerage, it is in Ubers best interest IN THIS TYPE OF MODEL to keep as many drivers as happy as they can. The difference is that, right now, Uber's customer is the pax. With the other model, Uber's customer becomes THE DRIVER. 
The brokers customer is not the real estate buyer/seller, it is the agent. For this reason a brokerage that uses this type of model does not want part time agents. I have seen agents 'released' because they took on a part time job.

IF Uber handles this right, this could turn out to be a very good thing for a fewer number of 'professional' drivers. Problem is, I haven't seen Uber handle much in a constructive manner to anyone, including themselves.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

outface said:


> Now is pay to surge. Next will be pay to drive. Step by step, Uber will make you come. Uber on.


At .42 per paid mile, you already ARE paying to work under X; if you're a driver in Orl.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


>


----------



## outface (Oct 15, 2017)

2Cents said:


> At .42 per paid mile, you already ARE paying to work under X; if you're a driver in Orl.


I meant pay (subscription fee) to drive.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

2Cents said:


> At .42 per paid mile, you already ARE paying to work under X; if you're a driver in Orl.


omg, the base rate customers pay is like $.71 in orlando. So I guess drivers really are getting under $.50/mile, lol. Who is stupid enough to be driving orlando? Unless it's surging constantly?


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> omg, the base rate customers pay is like $.71 in orlando. So I guess drivers really are getting under $.50/mile, lol. Who is stupid enough to be driving orlando? Unless it's surging constantly?


Doesn't surge . All fake surges in order to attract drivers to cover an area.



outface said:


> I meant pay (subscription fee) to drive.


Yea you're basically paying them $115 to drive for .62 per mile...
Plus you're paying for your own gas,insurance and maintenance.
Oh yea and that doesn't include if you have to make a car payment.


----------



## htboston (Feb 22, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> is this on top of surges ?
> 
> let's say you make 1000 for the week, obviously you can't count bonuses since this is only per ride, you will get 330 more, minus 115 and you got 215 more for the week which isn't worth the risk of you possibly not being able to finish the week with 1000 in rides
> 
> but if you normally make more than 1000, not including bonuses it might be a good deal


I hope you like dancing for peanuts. You are the monkey and they making you dance and you're dancing for them


----------



## DRIVER-99 (Oct 16, 2017)

This is a form of segregation. ? I can't believe they are going to segregate the amount of money paid to certain drivers. For those who don't opt in, will we be programmed for less trips.? This idea should be revisited?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

DRIVER-99 said:


> This is a form of segregation. ? I can't believe they are going to segregate the amount of money paid to certain drivers. For those who don't opt in, will we be programmed for less trips.? This idea should be revisited?


People act like 'segregation' is a bad thing, all in itself. All forms of 'segregation' are evil.
It depends on the reason for the segregation. Is it race or religion based? Is it specifically aimed at any of the 'protected classes'? Then it is illegal (if not evil).
Why is it so hard to believe that a company would cater to the customers who can afford to pay them. Isn't that what the difference between X and XL is? Financial segregation.
It costs me thousands of dollars a year to be a real estate broker. The barrier to entry is there. Should we allow anyone to sell real estate? I vote against that.


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> Isn't that what the difference between X and XL is?


No. No, it is not.
The difference between X and XL is the vehicle capacity.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

KenLV said:


> No. No, it is not.
> The difference between X and XL is the vehicle capacity.


Right - it is 'segregating' the people who need more capacity from those who do not.


----------



## DRIVER-99 (Oct 16, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> People act like 'segregation' is a bad thing, all in itself. All forms of 'segregation' are evil.
> It depends on the reason for the segregation. Is it race or religion based? Is it specifically aimed at any of the 'protected classes'? Then it is illegal (if not evil).
> Why is it so hard to believe that a company would cater to the customers who can afford to pay them. Isn't that what the difference between X and XL is? Financial segregation.
> It costs me thousands of dollars a year to be a real estate broker. The barrier to entry is there. Should we allow anyone to sell real estate? I vote against that.


Segregation can be good or bad. It is perfectly appropriate to segregate passenger customers. I'm not sure it's a good idea to segregate drivers who are all working the same job. I don't think it builds good morale. The goal is probably to get a committment from a specified number of drivers to make sure they are working when they want you. I think they would get more success if everyone could participate and then they offered some kind of prize for the top drivers who accomplished more than the others.

This situation raises equity questions? How much business which would have been shared with all the drivers instead be available to a select fewer? It diminishes the ability for non-participating drivers to earn money. When equity issues exist it raises lots of other questions. I think all the drivers should have the same opportunities. It's is very hard to judge the motive when you never see who you're working for. No one has a direct phone number or email address. Maybe I'm just an old man fropm a different era. I just can't take money out of my pocket and pay them for an opportunity. It just seems disrespectful.

The comments above are meant to be constructive criticism. I'm not unhappy. I enjoy this work. The only way things can change is by brining these issues to light. I've only been doing this for 5 months and still have a lot to learn.

When equity issues exist it erodes away trust. As it is tyou never see who you are working for ? There is little opportunity to see who you're working with. When someone says they care I want to look them in the eye. It's amazing when Staff communicates with drivers there is no direct contact number. No one has a last name. I think it creates a level of potential mistrust. If there is an issue, it's discovered when you can't go on line. everyone, is taken away.? The orther part is lack of infoermation. I don't know howq many other drivers will be out there. ? I think it's real strange you nevwer see who you're working for?


----------



## Tired of this (Apr 10, 2015)

So Uber thinks it's a great idea to play with the earnings of their economically disadvantaged workforce for the purposes of a study and to dick them over during Halloween time.

SHAME ON MIT as well.

And it's not even the fact that the terms are upfront that make this shady. It's the fact that:

1. Uber determines the play in amount.
2. Uber determines the ride allocation and how much you make.
3. Drivers do not know the odds of success since the more people that sign up, the more people will be locked onto the app accepting 100% of the ride requests, the less rides each driver will get.
4. Uber utilizes your money that you put in to guarantee that you will accept nearly 100% of the requests sent your way. 

Think about this: YOU are paying for Uber's right to exercise more control over you. You will have to accept every cheap ass requesting a pool with 4+ passengers on Halloween. 

It's important to note that drivers signing up for this will heavily reduce surge, so don't bank on that one 4X surge ride with the extra 33% bonus helping to push you over.

And even the winnings are miniscule compared to your chances of failure:

Example: Gross 1,000 = make an extra $333 - minus $115 pay in = 208 bonus. I am certain that most of us here or out there don't gross 1,000 a week.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Two half drunk cowboys in a dusty dirty bar.
One says: "Every game in this joint is rigged."
Two says: "Then why do you play here?"
One says: "Cause it's the only game in town."


----------



## baymatt (Feb 28, 2017)

PettyCab said:


> Soon they will be offering high interest payday loans.


It's called instant pay


----------



## GasHealthTimeCosts (Jul 24, 2017)

Uber can offer this because they know that some people won't make the cut for whatever reason. Whether someone just gets lazy, gets in an accident, an emergency doesn't let them drive that week... tons of reasons where they would pocket money on some drivers simply not being able to drive or make it profitable.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Tired of this said:


> Example: Gross 1,000 = make an extra $333 - minus $115 pay in = 208 bonus. I am certain that most of us here or out there don't gross 1,000 a week.


Then it's nothing to worry about. If this test ever does result in a new policy it will only affect a few drivers.


----------



## Hogg (Feb 7, 2016)

PettyCab said:


> Soon they will be offering high interest payday loans.


Well yeah, how else will you replace the worn out car that depreciates more per mile than you get paid?


----------



## john1975 (Jul 29, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


>


Uber would never dare offer this to me. I usually make at least 1500 so this would be quite a nice deal for me. Looks like it's Customized for a less lucrative market. I'm sure the buy in would be double for Boston.

I don't get why so many of you complain about this. If you drive full time is a great offer.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

john1975 said:


> Uber would never dare offer this to me. I usually make at least 1500 so this would be quite a nice deal for me. Looks like it's Customized for a less lucrative market. I'm sure the buy in would be double for Boston.
> 
> I don't get why so many of you complain about this. If you drive full time is a great offer.


I've only read about two different buy in prices so far but I still haven't seen anyone here who is part of this test.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

baymatt said:


> It's called instant pay


Ive been using the Debit Go and and its fee free as far as I can tell? Easier to put all fuel costs and stuff on that than pay 50 cents for a transfer elsewhere?

I dont see how this "promo" can work when Uber is the dealer and instead of spinning the wheel it just places the ball wherever it sees fit.


----------

