# California | Uber ordered to publicize business practices



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-ordered-to-publicize-business-practices/*


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

Uber has 5 days to respond and it can't be appealed....... I predict Uber will appeal. Another great find by chi cabby.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-ordered-to-publicize-business-practices/*


_Some of the more than 30 questions Uber answered, many of which were hidden, dealt with:

- Whether Uber drivers see all app requests in their vicinity.

- Uber's legal relationship to its subsidiary, Raiser.

- How a fare is calculated between Uber and its drivers.
_
The answer to the Fare Calculation question will be very interesting in the light of the fact that Uber & Lyft are shortchanging the Drivers in UberPool and LyftLine Payout calculations. The amount charged to the matched UberPool & LyftLine riders is Much Higher than the amount on which payouts to Drivers are based on.

Please read these 2 posts by arto71 to clearly understand this UberPool practice:

*PoolShit Is Getting Out of Control*
*PoolShit Is Getting Out of Control*


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

While the public seems to adore Uber's "**** you"
Attitude towards government, judges don't seem to agree.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If Uber submitted a different response to the CPUC, then CPUC should release that document to the public.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Fear of transparency = moral incorrectness


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-ordered-to-publicize-business-practices/*


Shouldn't the answer to that first question be "no"? Obviously it was not as it's too long and the second question was also answered. (See below for what I'm referring to).


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

What happened to the 7.3 M fine for not turning over the data in CA?

They pulled the same shit in NYC, the TLC had to shut down their bases to get them to comply.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> What happened to the 7.3 M fine for not turning over the data in CA?


This order is related to Phase II of Rulemaking Process for TNCs by CPUC.
_The CPUC is now crafting a new round of regulations for TNCs like Uber, which it calls Phase II regulations._
_


chi1cabby said:



*http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-ordered-to-publicize-business-practices/*

Click to expand...

_
Phase II Rulemaking Process is not related to $7.3 Million fine imposition in for Uber's failure to submit required data. Please see this post for the latest on that:
*(Updated) Uber Fined $7.3 Million by California PUC for Failing to File Required Data*


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> This order is related to Phase II of Rulemaking Process for TNCs by CPUC.
> _The CPUC is now crafting a new round of regulations for TNCs like Uber, which it calls Phase II regulations.
> 
> _
> ...


Not really getting it. Did Uber pay the fine?


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

UBER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PRACTICES


1.) Screw partner
2.) Screw California
3.) Screw driver
4.) Please see 1,2,3


----------



## Blah (Jul 11, 2015)

oh man... This California thing is getting good. I wonder why only Judge Chen sees through all of this and not other judges.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> Not really getting it. Did Uber pay the fine?


As expected, Uber filed an apparel on the 30th day deadline. Click the link to read the details of the Appeal:
*(Updated) Uber Fined $7.3 Million by California PUC for Failing to File Required Data*


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> While the public seems to adore Uber's "**** you"
> Attitude towards government, judges don't seem to agree.


Sadly, most of the UberX paxs just care about a cheap ride...


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Shouldn't the answer to that first question be "no"? Obviously it was not as it's too long and the second question was also answered. (See below for what I'm referring to).
> View attachment 13569


There is a tiered VIP system then


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> As expected, Uber filed an apparel on the 30th day deadline. Click the link to read the details of the Appeal:
> *(Updated) Uber Fined $7.3 Million by California PUC for Failing to File Required Data*


Unreal.


----------



## WAKE UP AUSTRALIA (Sep 4, 2015)

*"Uber ordered to publicize business practices"*

If only the media outlets in Australia were interested in doing the same. Perhaps if they were to peruse UberPeople.Net, they might gain a better understanding of Uber and how it (mis)treats its drivers. I just hope they manage to wake up in time.

I would invite US and Canadian forum members to visit the Australian cities on UberPeople.Net, and better inform both prospective and existing uberX drivers just what they can expect in the future, with regard to Uber and its business practices. Uber is a relatively new entrant in Australia, as you will find after viewing each of the current markets:

https://uberpeople.net/forums/Sydney/
https://uberpeople.net/forums/Melbourne/
https://uberpeople.net/forums/Brisbane/
https://uberpeople.net/forums/Adelaide/
https://uberpeople.net/forums/Perth/

It seems a lot of my counterparts are being hoodwinked into driving for uberX. What they aren't being told is that uberX remains illegal in every state and territory in Australia, and that the Service Agreement that drivers sign up to puts drivers in the firing line liability-wise. This is incredibly reckless behaviour on behalf of Uber Australia.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/voea7ngp2fyl5ed/Transportation Provider Service Agreement-4.pdf?dl=0

In short, Australian drivers are getting a raw deal (as I believe most US and Canadian drivers are). Sadly though, most don't fully realise it. I think they deserve fair warning of what's in store for them, should Uber prevail in Australia. I have begun doing my bit to alert viewers of this forum, but I could always use a little help along the way.

Thanks everyone, your posts really are most educational. Keep up the good work.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

I will try to help once I am on my computer. Tell me how you feel the agreement puts drivers in liability jeopardy?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA said:


> *"Uber ordered to publicize business practices"*
> 
> If only the media outlets in Australia were interested in doing the same. Perhaps if they were to peruse UberPeople.Net, they might gain a better understanding of Uber and how it (mis)treats its drivers. I just hope they manage to wake up in time.
> 
> ...


The quickest and best way to let more people know in Australia, is to Google Uber and your newspapers, tv stations, radio stations etc. Pick a few threads from uberpeople.net then tweet comments with relevent threads.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

You have a fellow member of the Commonwealth of Nations in Canada who takes the view that the prime person to care about it the consumer, not the driver. Interested as to what Actionjax attitude to your campaign is.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-ordered-to-publicize-business-practices/*


^^^
Eva Braun, er, uhhhh, Beherend said that they are "looking forward to working with the CPUC". 
LOL!
Yeah, I'll bet.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> Not really getting it. Did Uber pay the fine?


^^^
The check is in the mail.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> I will try to help once I am on my computer. Tell me how you feel the agreement puts drivers in liability jeopardy?


^^^
Probably jeopardizes the drivers with fines and impounding of their cars.... not knowing exactly how they do things in Oz. 
Might even mean having to go 12 MMA rounds with a kangaroo.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

I notice Australia is operating under a May 2014 agreement when there is a newer November 2014 agreement. The older one States " There will be no tipping." It also tells the driver that accepting the agreement the driver acknowledges his insurance covers transporting of people. (Paraphrased). I was too tired to look at the arbitration agreement.

The biggest disagreement I would have w/uber is using an outdated contract.


----------



## WAKE UP AUSTRALIA (Sep 4, 2015)

Apologies for not returning to the forum sooner UberNorthStar.

Uber's business practices do worry me. I have been looking at the_ 'Transportation Provider Service Agreement' _which uberX drivers need to accept.

_https://www.dropbox.com/s/voea7ngp2fyl5ed/Transportation Provider Service Agreement-4.pdf?dl=0_

Page 1, Paragraph 4.

_"You are an independent transportation provider who offers rideshare or P2P transportation services, which business you are authorized to conduct in the state(s) in which you operate."_

Driving on the uberX platform is not authorised in any state or territory in Australia, at least not for the moment. I believe that the fact uberX remains illegal creates a loophole. This loophole allows Uber to disregard the agreement with an uberX driver at any time. If no uberX driver is authorised, then Uber does not have to honour the agreement. At least it would seem the case.

Page 9, Paragraph 2

_"You shall be liable to the Client for all claims of damage and/or injury to any Client sustained while being transported by you. You agree to notify the Company of any damage or injury as soon as practicable after the damage or injury occurs. You understand that insurance may or may not provide coverage for damage or injury, or it may provide coverage for some, but not all, damage or injury."_

It would seem that uberX drivers are completely on their own, in spite of claims by Uber to the contrary. I understand drivers are told something quite different at sign-up, should they ask. I believe Uber will refer to the agreement in the event of a dispute, and deny driver partners any come-back.

Rememeber, uberX has yet to be authorised in any state or territory in Australia. Yet Uber encourages people here to drive. I believe this is one instance of a suspect 'business practice', one that should be more fully exposed on the UberPeople.Net forum. I suspect that drivers here know of other questionable behaviour by Uber during the past four years.

New markets such as Australia deserve fair warning as to how Uber goes about its business. Drivers should be informed, regulators should be informed, indeed the general public should be informed. I feel that many of the participants on UberPeople.Net can help make that happen.

Thanks for you suggestion observer, I will be making increased efforts to alert the Australian media to Uber's business practices.

Thank you again for the opportunity to convey my concerns.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

The Agreement you are quoting from is from May 2014. The agreement I signed is dated November 2014. Why the two contracts?

https://uber-regulatory-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/country/united_states/p2p/Partner Agreement November 10 2014.pdf

Granted the link is for the United States. Why has not the document for Australia been updated? Why does it read in such childish (simple) form? I am referring to reasons for deactivation. (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) Nothing about arbitration.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I read in your agreement that (paraphrased) each driver will maintain personal insurance and in signing the agreement the personal insurance knows the partner is driving for the Company.

My opinion is your transportation minister needs to stick to his guns & make sure Uber provides the proper liability insurance per province/state rules just like they have here in the US.

One thing I have realized with the Uber (James River) insurance is that a US driver needs to be covered by _commercial collision/comprehensive _insurance to pay for a driver's damages if at fault. That should cover personal driving, also. (?) The a driver needs personal liability for when he is driving for personal reasons.

Ride-share insurance here in the US covers only the insurance gap when a driver's app is on and he is awaiting a ping. Nothing else!

JM2cW

PS I am open to a conversation w/you, WAKE UP AUSTRALIA, briefly, to get away from this forum. Start a conversation with only me so I can respond. Thanks.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Page 1 . . . Think about the drivers who work their buns off just for Uber to turn around and refuse to pay them?

Page 9 . . . That is why the James River commercial liability w/a $1M umbrella CYA (Uber) policy is in effect here. US drivers still do not have the right insurance.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Sacto Burbs 6764 said:


> who takes the view that the prime person to care about it the consumer


Unfortunately, consumers care only about the price. They don't pay attn to whether they are covered in an accident or not, that is until they are in an accident.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Misses Data Deadline*
http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-misses-data-deadline/


----------

