# UBER In talks for High Risk $ 2 billion Loan



## UberReallySucks (Jul 17, 2015)

*Uber in talks to close up to $2 billion in leveraged loans*
Posted 7 hours ago by John Mannes (@JohnMannes)
http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/14/net-neutrality-withstands-legal-challenge/









Rumors from the Wall Street Journal that Uber was in the process of finalizing terms for a $1-2 Billion leveraged loan began spreading just after noon PST. This comes just two weeks after the company closed a $3.5 billion equity round from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. If the deal goes through, it would mean the company has added $5.5 Billion to it coffers in the amount of time it takes a typical startup to initiate discussion of a funding round.

One benefit of Uber raising money as debt rather than equity is that it can avoid additional dilution for its employees. The company has raised $12.51 billion in equity financing since 2009. The company has also previously brought in close to $2 Billion in debt financing from what is effectively a Wall Street credit line. This is the first time Uber is considering higher risk leveraged loans.

Leveraged loans typically have higher interest rates than traditional debt financing. It is also common for such loans to have variable rate interest. According to the Wall Street Journal, Uber is looking to secure a 4-4.5 percent yield.

Uber is betting heavily on international expansion and is going to need a lot of capital to accomplish that. The company has a notoriously high burn rate despite reports that company is profitable in the North America.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberReallySucks said:


> *Uber in talks to close up to $2 billion in leveraged loans*
> Posted 7 hours ago by John Mannes (@JohnMannes)
> 
> One benefit of Uber raising money as debt rather than equity is that it can avoid additional dilution for its *employees*.


I guess he means *investors*. No employees or drivers(basically the same thing anyhow) own any part of the company. Not sure how he could confuse the two.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I guess he means *investors*. No employees or drivers(basically the same thing anyhow) own any part of the company. Not sure how he could confuse the two.


Actual Uber "employees" (not drivers, not support agents), will typically have signed contracts that grant them a fixed number of stock options at secured purchase prices. Obviously, as Uber currently has no publicly traded stock, these options are currently worthless, however, they do represent a fixed number of "shares" of stock when (if) Uber goes public. At that time, employees will be able to purchase their vested options at the prices identified in their contracts.

So the author wrote that correctly. Uber *does* have employees. Those employees receive normal paychecks, have benefits packages, etc. And I assure you, the majority of those employees have stock option packages.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

As I stated in the other thread identical to this one, Uber is desparate for cash if they are going this route.
This is VERY good news for those of us praying for an agonizing death of Uber.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

UberReallySucks said:


> *Uber in talks to close up to $2 billion in leveraged loans*
> Posted 7 hours ago by John Mannes (@JohnMannes)
> 
> 
> ...


you're a lil late buddy............

http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/u...arket-to-raise-up-to-another-2-billion.84305/


----------



## AllenChicago (Nov 19, 2015)

I don't get it. Isn't Uber's profit margin insanely high? We must be the least expensive part of their overall business expense. Send us a PING and away we go to pick up money for the company.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

AllenChicago said:


> I don't get it. Isn't Uber's profit margin insanely high? We must be the least expensive part of their overall business expense. Send us a PING and away we go to pick up money for the company.


Uber burns through a LOT of cash in driver recruitment (referral bonuses, etc.), driver retention (guarantees), and finally passenger recruitment and retention (free ride credits, etc.). Most of any actual profit earned is spent on operational costs (local office staff, support, background checks and insurance).


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> As I stated in the other thread identical to this one, Uber is desparate for cash if they are going this route.
> This is VERY good news for those of us praying for an agonizing death of Uber.


Yep. Lady Karma tends to be pretty furious when scorned. Better watch out for her wrath, Big Foober. The party might be about over and Motel 6 may not leave the light on when things start going sideways. It'll make for a good laugh to watch the house of cards come crashing down.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

UberReallySucks said:


> *Uber in talks to close up to $2 billion in leveraged loans*
> Posted 7 hours ago by John Mannes (@JohnMannes)
> 
> 
> ...


 Obviously they struck out in China.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> you're a lil late buddy............
> 
> http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/u...arket-to-raise-up-to-another-2-billion.84305/


 Late for what. The uber prom?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

andaas said:


> Actual Uber "employees" (not drivers, not support agents), will typically have signed contracts that grant them a fixed number of stock options at secured purchase prices. Obviously, as Uber currently has no publicly traded stock, these options are currently worthless, however, they do represent a fixed number of "shares" of stock when (if) Uber goes public. At that time, employees will be able to purchase their vested options at the prices identified in their contracts.
> 
> So the author wrote that correctly. Uber *does* have employees. Those employees receive normal paychecks, have benefits packages, etc. And I assure you, the majority of those employees have stock option packages.


Here's what we know for sure, the people that have invested in this company have stock/equity in this company

Regarding employees, please link to your source regarding factual evidence of any employees having any stock whatsoever in this company.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Here's what we know for sure, the people that have invested in this company have stock/equity in this company
> 
> Regarding employees, please link to your source regarding factual evidence of any employees having any stock whatsoever in this company.


It's Silicon Valley... programmer's will not work for a startup without a contract that ensures stock options, period. This is common sense, and not based on any direct confirmation. That is how technology startups work, period.

For example, this would apply to all the employees who attended the big (not-so) secret Vegas party last year.

This is *WHY* people are willing to work for a ******-bag like Kalanak.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

I wonder what the investors are thinking about all of this. like Saudi Arabia just dumped $3.5 billion just to see a week later Uber needs another $2 billion.. I really don't think Uber really cares for their employees stocks being diluted. The investors might be alittle antsy though.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

andaas said:


> It's Silicon Valley... programmer's will not work for a startup without a contract that ensures stock options, period. This is common sense, and not based on any direct confirmation. That is how technology startups work, period.
> 
> For example, this would apply to all the employees who attended the big (not-so) secret Vegas party last year.
> 
> This is *WHY* people are willing to work for a ******-bag like Kalanak.


You can guess all you want. Maybe there are a tiny amount of employees at the top that were granted stock or even stock options but the vast amount of "employees" as quoted from the article do not have any stock at all. He should have inserted investors because only the investors are guaranteed stock in the company.



Brooklyn said:


> I wonder what the investors are thinking about all of this. like Saudi Arabia just dumped $3.5 billion just to see a week later Uber needs another $2 billion.. I really don't think Uber really cares for their employees stocks being diluted. The investors might be alittle antsy though.


The fact that Uber is now needing to take out a high interest credit line simply means that their investor money is drying up. People are wising up to what, as of right now, is a ponzi scheme. Uber has no intention at the moment of turning a profit. They are more interested in pouring more "referral bonus" money down the drain to get new drivers on the road and going down this UberPool money losing maching that they are pushing instead of raising rates to keep older experienced drivers and making sure the UberPool rates are higher than UberX rates so that there is less incentive for people to take them and so that Uber is able to make a profit.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You can guess all you want. Maybe there are a tiny amount of employees at the top that were granted stock or even stock options but the vast amount of "employees" as quoted from the article do not have any stock at all. He should have inserted investors because only the investors are guaranteed stock in the company.


Just because this type of business is not something you have personally experienced does not mean that is not how a company is run. Here is an article that explains much of what I am saying - http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusi...tions-work-in-startup-companies/#6596db6513ce

Does *EVERY* Uber employee have stock options? Of course not. But trust me when I say that the vast majority *do*.

These employees do not have massive blocks of shares. They are granted very specific numbers of shares based on their personal contract negotiation when hired. Where a highly experienced Oracle DBA may have negotiated a $125k salary with option to buy 7,500 shares after 3 years of employment (note that the company *still* has to go public for those shares to have any value); a QA lead may have a $75k salary with option to buy 500 shares after the same period.

There is likely a qualifying tier of employee responsibility within the company to qualify for stock option plans, but in my personal opinion, if a potential hire falls below that tier - Uber would probably just hire them as a subcontracted worker and not offer them any benefits (like all of the support agents).



uberdriverfornow said:


> The fact that Uber is now needing to take out a high interest credit line simply means that their investor money is drying up. People are wising up to what, as of right now, is a ponzi scheme. Uber has no intention at the moment of turning a profit. They are more interested in pouring more "referral bonus" money down the drain to get new drivers on the road and going down this UberPool money losing maching that they are pushing instead of raising rates to keep older experienced drivers and making sure the UberPool rates are higher than UberX rates so that there is less incentive for people to take them and so that Uber is able to make a profit.


All FUD in the article aside, it is NOT that uncommon for companies to secure credit lines like this for regular operating expenses. By securing credit, they have access to cash needed to fund operations at a known expense rate (e.g., 4.5%). Had they secured another $2 billion in investment funding, that $2 billion would further dilute the value of the currently unreleased stock (just like the recent $3.5 billion investment last week).

Given that Uber is not a public company, it is impossible to know how many shares are outstanding, so many of these numbers are fictional on my part.

** Disclaimer **
I am not a "fan" of Uber. I want Uber to fail QUICKLY and PAINFULLY. However, I also understand how a startup is operated and am not blind to that fact.


----------



## Drive777 (Jan 23, 2015)

andaas said:


> All FUD in the article aside, it is NOT that uncommon for companies to secure credit lines like this for regular operating expenses. By securing credit, they have access to cash needed to fund operations at a known expense rate (e.g., 4.5%). Had they secured another $2 billion in investment funding, that $2 billion would further dilute the value of the currently unreleased stock (just like the recent $3.5 billion investment last week).


These two articles give more perspective to the discussion:

A Chinese Rival Beats Uber at Its Own Game

Uber Looking to Raise $2 Billion Through Risky Loans

Uber looks far more wreckless than Didi Chuxing when you consider they're having to go to oppressive regimes and second tier loan markets for their latest rounds of funding. Didi, emphasizing its technology partnership with Apple and strong customer loyalty in China is wiping the floor with Uber (it's "patriotic" for the Chinese to back their own and take care of their own as opposed to how Uber does things).

Their entire philosophy is different, whereas Uber just doesn't care about image or taking care of anyone but the people at the top.... hence the large number of driver and rider lawsuits piling up. That's where Travis is making a huge miscalculation in China. He thinks he can buy the market, and they just don't work that way.

My opinion is these latest moves by Uber do speak to some amount of desperation. Rather they come out ahead or not remains to be seen.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Drive777 said:


> My opinion is these latest moves by Uber do speak to some amount of desperation. Rather they come out ahead or not remains to be seen.


I don't see this as desperation so much as I see it as Uber's plan for normalization of operations moving forward.

The recent $3.5B investment is earmarked for worldwide growth, whereas Uber has reported within the past 4-6 months that their US operations are "profitable" today. When your operation expenses are predictable, securing a credit line to handle your operation costs makes sense. Had Uber secured $2B in funding to manage domestic operation costs over the next year, that would again dilute the potential stock value if they are unable to increase their valuation estimate. With a credit line at 4.5% interest, Uber is only paying interest on the funds they use (think your personal credit card account), they have immediate access to $2B if needed, but may only use a fraction of that over the course of a year.

Again, at a reasonable interest rate, it gives them operational flexibility in established markets without having to cut into value.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

andaas said:


> Just because this type of business is not something you have personally experienced does not mean that is not how a company is run. Here is an article that explains much of what I am saying - http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusi...tions-work-in-startup-companies/#6596db6513ce
> 
> Does *EVERY* Uber employee have stock options? Of course not. But trust me when I say that the vast majority *do*.
> 
> ...


Concurrent with these reports about Uber's pursuit of these dodgy loans, I am seeing coverage of Herr K's PR interviews wherein he seems desperate to bolster the impression that Uber is profitable in many markets (excluding taxes and interest.)

Well...that's a bit wobbly. Taxes and interest would seem to be fairly important and predictable business expenses. Seems tough to look past those.

It reminds me of Donald Trump and his view that bankruptcy is just a normal and acceptable business practice. His having used bankruptcy 4 times to bailout bad business situations should not be seen as a negative, apparently.


----------



## Atlwarrior (Nov 2, 2014)

Uber shot itself in the foot by greed and lowering Uber X rate. It lower cost but kept saturating Uber X with new drivers. The good experience drivers have either stop driving or cut back significantly.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Atlwarrior said:


> Uber shot itself in the foot by greed and lowering Uber X rate. It lower cost but kept saturating Uber X with new drivers. The good experience drivers have either stop driving or cut back significantly.


Uber shot themselves in the foot when they decided to make an effort to control the entire livery industry, instead of just marketing their nifty technology products to established, licensed livery businesses for each to make use of them in the best way for each of their various markets.

Very high risk move, especially in an industry which doesn't have large barriers to entry.

Frick and Rockefeller and Vanderbilt went to dominate industries like steel, oil and railroads which required large capital investments to even compete. Kalanick picked a service industry, where anyone who owns a car is a possible competitor, and he doesn't even own the vehicles that are making the money.

The only sense I could see is if some cab driver peed in his corn flakes as a kid, and he devoted his life to getting back at the whole profession. Since progressives always hated the independent, devil may care, semi-outlaws in the cab business, it gave him some momentum. But we'll see what happens next.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Everyone just stop driving and or drive a lot less. They've treated drivers with no respect and still no tip option far too long and make you work for peanuts.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber shot themselves in the foot when they decided to make an effort to control the entire livery industry, instead of just marketing their nifty technology products to established, licensed livery businesses for each to make use of them in the best way for each of their various markets.
> 
> Very high risk move, especially in an industry which doesn't have large barriers to entry.
> 
> ...


Agreed. This TNC industry will fragment further and further. Uber and Lyft left Austin, and almost instantly, 6 different alternatives jumped in. I don't believe Uber will dominate forever, and actually, they could collapse very quickly.


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

stuber said:


> Agreed. This TNC industry will fragment further and further. Uber and Lyft left Austin, and almost instantly, 6 different alternatives jumped in. I don't believe Uber will dominate forever, and actually, they could collapse very quickly.


Actually, I'm smelling blood!


----------



## volksie (Apr 8, 2015)

stuber said:


> Agreed. This TNC industry will fragment further and further. Uber and Lyft left Austin, and almost instantly, 6 different alternatives jumped in. I don't believe Uber will dominate forever, and actually, they could collapse very quickly.


They're collapsing one driver & one rider at a time. I used to do 30-50 rides a week (X, XL, & Select).... Zero this week and I've been doing 3-8 rides a week. The new drivers will quit in a much shorter period of time because of the high commish on profitless fares.


----------



## Atlwarrior (Nov 2, 2014)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber shot themselves in the foot when they decided to make an effort to control the entire livery industry, instead of just marketing their nifty technology products to established, licensed livery businesses for each to make use of them in the best way for each of their various markets.
> 
> Very high risk move, especially in an industry which doesn't have large barriers to entry.
> 
> ...


Great point!


----------



## Drive777 (Jan 23, 2015)

andaas said:


> Again, at a reasonable interest rate, it gives them operational flexibility in established markets without having to cut into value.


Maybe it is routine budget planning but Uber also finds itself in a position to Didi much like Lyft is to Uber, except burning through much more cash in a risky market that may not go its way. What happens to investors' potential stock value if Uber loses that fight? The money expected to be paid back is staggering at these levels.

That's why I sense at least some worry on Uber's end over a long, drawn out price war in China. Didi's network on the ground is many times larger, more diversified and open to just as much funding if not more.

Unless the tide somehow flips in Uber's favor they could well discover it was a fatal mistake trying to take on the Chinese by outspending them in their own market. There are better ways to achieve profit and long term growth but when you set world domination as your goal and use other people's money to do it, well.... you either live up to those expectations or die trying.


----------



## Atlwarrior (Nov 2, 2014)

Uber should have left everything like when it started. Everyone was happy. They lower car qualifications(Uber X), cut rates, kept hiring, and good drivers are gone. Then to just leave the Austin market screwed thousands of drivers showed their true heart. If I was an investors I would run from this company.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

It's been so long I don't remember the details, but one of my first posts on this forum was regarding an article that only a very few of Uber's original employees were still with the company. Few as in like ten or so.

Edit to add. I joined the forum last August.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

PoorBasterd said:


> Actually, I'm smelling blood!


I watched some YouTube stuff about Arcade City today. It's interesting. The founder is either a genius or a nut. Someone chime in if they know much about that blockchain thing he's talking about. I'm clueless.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Drive777 said:


> Maybe it is routine budget planning but Uber also finds itself in a position to Didi much like Lyft is to Uber, except burning through much more cash in a risky market that may not even go its way. What happens to investors' potential stock value if Uber loses that fight? The money expected to be paid back is staggering at these levels.
> 
> That's why I sense at least some worry on Uber's end over a long, drawn out price war in China. Didi's network on the ground is many times larger, more diversified and open to just as much new funding if not more.
> 
> Unless the tide somehow flips in Uber's favor they could well discover it was a fatal mistake to try and take on the Chinese by outspending them in their own market. There are better ways to achieve profit and long term growth but when you set world domination as your goal and use other people's money to do it, well.... you either live up to those expectations or die trying.


Seeing as how Didi just raised 7 BILLION DOLLARS, looks like Uber either better quit now or die there later.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj....ing-1465985225?client=ms-android-metropcs-us#


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

stuber said:


> I watched some YouTube stuff about Arcade City today. It's interesting. The founder is either a genius or a nut. Someone chime in if they know much about that blockchain thing he's talking about. I'm clueless.


Blockchains are the backbone to creating cryptocurrencies like Bitcoins. I don't know how it applies to Arcade City as I don't know anything about them.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

volksie said:


> They're collapsing one driver & one rider at a time. I used to do 30-50 rides a week (X, XL, & Select).... Zero this week and I've been doing 3-8 rides a week. The new drivers will quit in a much shorter period of time because of the high commish on profitless fares.


Uber is like a giant plow turning over the soil, but behind them are coming 100 alternatives, each specific in their focus. The network effect doesn't apply in this as much as people want to believe it does. Repeat customers want things Uber can't give them. Things like privacy and personal attention. People do business with the people they like. There's not much to like about a driver who's a commodity. Personal is better. Real trust beats crowd-source trust.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Blockchains are the backbone to creating cryptocurrencies like Bitcoins. I don't know how it applies to Arcade City as I don't know anything about them.


I'm reading up on Arcade City.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

stuber said:


> Uber is like a giant plow turning over the soil, but behind them are coming 100 alternatives, each specific in their focus. The network effect doesn't apply in this as much as people want to believe it does. Repeat customers want things Uber can't give them. Things like privacy and personal attention. People do business with the people they like. There's not much to like about a driver who's a commodity. Personal is better. Real trust beats crowd-source trust.


100% of my pax who have brought up the issue of Uber threatening to leave Houston over fingerprinting support the idea of fingerprinting. Uber doesn't seem to get it. They are fighting a losing battle.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Y'all making this more complicated then it is.

Simply put, if you want something like uber to exist; you're going to have to find a supply and demand. There's plenty of supply (eg you drivers) and not enough demand. Before uber came about, were taxis raking it in? What is the usual mode of transport? You'd either take public transport OR you would hitch a ride.

Majority of the folks who take taxis are those who visit out of town, the business traveling folk and the occasional drunken group that couldn't convince someone in their group to be the DD.

Uber is trying to get folks to STOP taking buses/trains to work, STOP bugging parents, relatives, friends for rides and STOP having some lonesome person be left out of the drinking fest.

The thing is, the economy isn't up to snuff. It's almost a decade after the big crash of the financial world but the ripple effect was big and folks aren't biting.

That's why the prices are lowered



Atlwarrior said:


> Uber shot itself in the foot by greed and lowering Uber X rate. It lower cost but kept saturating Uber X with new drivers. The good experience drivers have either stop driving or cut back significantly.


and still, the bites aren't big enough to get uber the stability it seeks to really be aggressive in other markets so they're raising funds to do so.

The problem is, do we really need personal drivers? Can the average joe afford to do so on a regular basis? Didn't they come out with a report about how the average American doesn't even have 2k in savings for emergency fund/rainny day?!

Those rich enough to afford personal drivers, have one. Heck, a friend of mine in collage, all he did was drive an old lady around for $20/hr. Found the job on Craigslist.

Uber has tech app magic on their side (also a huge chunk of the cost, human programmers and all).

But I really don't think uber is a necessity, and they should focus more on luxury drivers as well as focusing on (I believe this is in the works already) commute carpool. As in, if I'm driving to work every day across the bridge, one hour each way, cos I'm headed to WORK and need to drive (and use the gas/mileage) already.. I can turn on uber app and then folks in nearby area can ping me if they're headed in the same route. The key is SAME route and not like the stupid carpool which can take you streets out of way and then back on the route (if that makes sense).

It would mean I get to pick up a few extra dollars for what I'm already doing. The train would cost that person a few dollars anyways plus they have the luxury of a guaranteed seat (something that public transport doesn't) and depending on the route, may not need to transfer between trains/bus---so more of a convenience then anything.

But of course, that's if I were to do something like uber and try to compete, that's the direction I would take.


----------



## Atlwarrior (Nov 2, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Y'all making this more complicated then it is.
> 
> Simply put, if you want something like uber to exist; you're going to have to find a supply and demand. There's plenty of supply (eg you drivers) and not enough demand. Before uber came about, were taxis raking it in? What is the usual mode of transport? You'd either take public transport OR you would hitch a ride.
> 
> ...


The model was fine in beginning, but allowing lower quality cars and rates left then with lower quality drivers. It should have been a cap on Uber X drivers and higher car requirements. I can understand capital for new markets, but Uber should have been more sensitive to needs of each city and not just the big ones like NYC and LA. It city that depends on tourism or corporate accounts should have been treated as such. No matter how Uber tries to use it algorithms the human factor still matters. I really don't care as I only drive for supplemental income on the weekends.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Atlwarrior said:


> The model was fine in beginning, but allowing lower quality cars and rates left then with lower quality drivers. It should have been a cap on Uber X drivers and higher car requirements. I can understand capital for new markets, but Uber should have been more sensitive to needs of each city and not just the big ones like NYC and LA. It city that depends on tourism or corporate accounts should have been treated as such. No matter how Uber tries to use it algorithms the human factor still matters. I really don't care as I only drive for supplemental income on the weekends.


If it was, they wouldn't have lowered the rates and allow lower quality cars.

They couldn't grow as aggressively as they'd like with that model.

I know a lot of business owners, I only know of one that said--I'm okay with slow and steady. I rather reinvest the money I've made into my employees and set up 401k as well as get them pensions on top of medical/dental/vision benefits. That blew my mind away because businesses generally don't operate that way.

If that model they had originally sustained and actually profited; they wouldn't slash their prices or look into lower models. Who does that when they're making hand over fist in money in actual profit margins and not gross?

I'm sure uber has a plan to get out of this (rut), or maybe it's a good bluff as they've gotten this far, and thus the injection of new funds from investors and lenders.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

andaas said:


> Just because this type of business is not something you have personally experienced does not mean that is not how a company is run. Here is an article that explains much of what I am saying - http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusi...tions-work-in-startup-companies/#6596db6513ce
> 
> Does *EVERY* Uber employee have stock options? Of course not. But trust me when I say that the vast majority *do*.
> 
> ...


There is NOTHING to suggest any of this applies to Uber, in any way, shape, or form.

Companies do use stock options to bring high valued employees onboard but you seem to be confusing companies that care about their enployees with Uber and you fail to remember all the horror stories from all the CSR's that hated working for Uber. While they give out options to people like Mrs Huffington, you are far away from proving anything has happened to date.

Simply generalizing what IS possible doesn't make it hold true, especially in this instance, with this particular company, with this particular track record.


----------



## UberPartnerDennis (Jun 21, 2015)

andaas said:


> Uber burns through a LOT of cash in driver recruitment (referral bonuses, etc.), driver retention (guarantees), and finally passenger recruitment and retention (free ride credits, etc.). Most of any actual profit earned is spent on operational costs (local office staff, support, background checks and insurance).


And they could avoid all those incentives bonuses and recruitment costs by simple having the rate at a high enough level to actually make a profit for them and the drivers....they dont get it and never will because upper management has no clue what they are doing. If they did, Uber would be a profit turning powerhouse by now instead of a money sucking black hole like it is right now


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> 100% of my pax who have brought up the issue of Uber threatening to leave Houston over fingerprinting support the idea of fingerprinting. Uber doesn't seem to get it. They are fighting a losing battle.


Neither do the pax. Uber can't keep rates low without flooding the market with drivers and they can't do that if drivers can't get swift approval or are excluded from qualifying. Uber only claims to screen out sexual predators, the violent, and those who would scam the pax. Fingerprinting might eliminate far more. Taxi's have a high percentage of drivers that are foreigners. Fingerprinting only reveals crimes in the US. Background checks on foreigners are near meaningless. Pax complain about foreign speaking drivers, so when you note that pax support fingerprinting they are telling themselves that they are meaningful, and that it will not cause a driver shortage, will not increase the % of foreigners...all of which are probably wrong.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> There is NOTHING to suggest any of this applies to Uber, in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> Companies do use stock options to bring high valued employees onboard but you seem to be confusing companies that care about their enployees with Uber and you fail to remember all the horror stories from all the CSR's that hated working for Uber. While they give out options to people like Mrs Huffington, you are far away from proving anything has happened to date.
> 
> Simply generalizing what IS possible doesn't make it hold true, especially in this instance, with this particular company, with this particular track record.


CSR's are not *employees* at Uber - hell, 90% of the staff working in the Uber city offices are not employees and are independent contractors.

I am talking about employees that work at Uber HQ, those working on software development (100's of people), marketing (100's of people), operations (100's of people), executive management (several dozen people). In all, if Uber actually employs 500 individuals as full time, salaried workers, the vast majority of those workers have a stock option agreement. They don't all stand to become billionaires, some may have agreements that only promise 100 shares, but THEY HAVE A SMALL PIECE.

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE WORK FOR STARTUPS.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow ... also since you still doubt that it is "normal" for a company like Uber to offer incentive stock options to *all* employees, read this article: Behind the Scenes: EquityZen tackles "If I joined Uber After College"

That is a theoretical example of an ENTRY LEVEL HIRE, right out of college.

Uber doesn't care about the DRIVERS, the SUPPORT STAFF, hell, they barely care about the PASSENGERS (they only care enough to keep passengers using the system). They *do* care about their actual employees, and have incentive stock options, lavish parties, etc.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

volksie said:


> They're collapsing one driver & one rider at a time. I used to do 30-50 rides a week (X, XL, & Select).... Zero this week and I've been doing 3-8 rides a week. The new drivers will quit in a much shorter period of time because of the high commish on profitless fares.


That's interesting information. As a cab driver ,when Uber came to Portland, I went from 15 to 20 trips a day to around 10 to 15. It slowed down, but not by much. Uber drivers refused to listen to our suggestion the city place a cap on their numbers. So now, rather than an Uber driver making decent money, they have several thousand drivers making diddly. The Uber drivers claimed we were afraid of the competition. The only competition Uber has is between the drivers. It's death by 10,000 cuts.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

andaas said:


> CSR's are not *employees* at Uber - hell, 90% of the staff working in the Uber city offices are not employees and are independent contractors.
> 
> I am talking about employees that work at Uber HQ, those working on software development (100's of people), marketing (100's of people), operations (100's of people), executive management (several dozen people). In all, if Uber actually employs 500 individuals as full time, salaried workers, the vast majority of those workers have a stock option agreement. They don't all stand to become billionaires, some may have agreements that only promise 100 shares, but THEY HAVE A SMALL PIECE.
> 
> THIS IS WHY PEOPLE WORK FOR STARTUPS.


Anybody you talk to are not employess,they are contractors.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> That's interesting information. As a cab driver ,when Uber came to Portland, I went from 15 to 20 trips a day to around 10 to 15. It slowed down, but not by much. Uber drivers refused to listen to our suggestion the city place a cap on their numbers. So now, rather than an Uber driver making decent money, they have several thousand drivers making diddly. The Uber drivers claimed we were afraid of the competition. The only competition Uber has is between the drivers. It's death by 10,000 cuts.


It's not the Uber drivers that refused to listen.. it's Uber. Drivers have no voice or control aside from just not logging on/quitting.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

stuber said:


> I watched some YouTube stuff about Arcade City today. It's interesting. The founder is either a genius or a nut. Someone chime in if they know much about that blockchain thing he's talking about. I'm clueless.


I think he's a naive genius. Blockchain is the underlying technology behind extremely distributed technologies like Bitcoin. Theoretically a single app could connect every potential rider with every potential driver with no other intermediary.

However, it completely ignores the real-world limitations we face. Who determines whether a driver has had background checks, proper vehicle registration, etc. Does the driver have any locally required licenses. Management of geofences (like airport restrictions) also presents a problem.

Also, payment would probably use something like Bitcoins rather than credit cards transferring value denominated in government currency. I don't know of any gas stations that will let you fill up and pay with Bitcoins.

Now, if someone could figure out how to become the intermediary providing the necessary services and utilizing the full potential of blockchain, they'd still face a host of practical problems.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Tequila Jake said:


> I think a naive genius. Blockchain is the underlying technology behind extremely distributed technologies like Bitcoin. Theoretically a single app could connect every potential rider with every potential driver with no other intermediary.
> 
> However, it completely ignores the real-world limitations we face. Who determines whether a driver has had background checks, proper vehicle registration, etc. Does the driver have any locally required licenses. Management of geofences (like airport restrictions) also presents a problem.
> 
> ...


I'll read up. The cutting out of the middleman is certainly appealing. It seems to me that managing the driver documentation is not that tough. Payment systems are also fairly easy too.
Thanks.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Agreed. This TNC industry will fragment further and further. Uber and Lyft left Austin, and almost instantly, 6 different alternatives jumped in. I don't believe Uber will dominate forever, and actually, they could collapse very quickly.


Uber has two things going for it. Name recognition and extremely low prices. It can charge low prices because it's drivers bear nearly all the expense. Because of the nature of the business, an organized work stoppage just isn't going to happen. Legislation could change all that in a heartbeat. If I were able to trade Uber stock, I would be shorting it right now.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Drive777 said:


> Maybe it is routine budget planning but Uber also finds itself in a position to Didi much like Lyft is to Uber, except burning through much more cash in a risky market that may not go its way. What happens to investors' potential stock value if Uber loses that fight? The money expected to be paid back is staggering at these levels.
> 
> That's why I sense at least some worry on Uber's end over a long, drawn out price war in China. Didi's network on the ground is many times larger, more diversified and open to just as much funding if not more.
> 
> Unless the tide somehow flips in Uber's favor they could well discover it was a fatal mistake trying to take on the Chinese by outspending them in their own market. There are better ways to achieve profit and long term growth but when you set world domination as your goal and use other people's money to do it, well.... you either live up to those expectations or die trying.


Market forces will not determine the result in China. The Chinese government will.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

It's like the amway pyramid scheme. The top few % get reap all the benefits.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Rat said:


> Because of the nature of the business, an organized work stoppage just isn't going to happen. .


The only way to get a "work stoppage" is to develop or utilize another method of dispatching and collecting other than the Uber app. Continue to work, just under a different system.

Uber has been excellent at recruiting new drivers, people just staying home is pretty much expected, it would look like just a slight spike in the turnover rate to the Uber computer.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> That's interesting information. As a cab driver ,when Uber came to Portland, I went from 15 to 20 trips a day to around 10 to 15. It slowed down, but not by much. Uber drivers refused to listen to our suggestion the city place a cap on their numbers. So now, rather than an Uber driver making decent money, they have several thousand drivers making diddly. The Uber drivers claimed we were afraid of the competition. The only competition Uber has is between the drivers. It's death by 10,000 cuts.


There is a pool of pax that just will not take a taxi but will take an Uber. I've had many pax tell me they took a taxi once or twice and it was such a bad experience they quit using them. The Uber came along and offered them a much better alternative at a much better price. When I drove a cab, half my passengers were crackheads. Cabs will still get those pax because they can't get credit cards.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

KMANDERSON said:


> Anybody you talk to are not employess,they are contractors.


Exactly. They may have some employees but it's very limited in scope. For some reason this guy just wants to back up the author so bad. I'm not sure the exact motive.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

Rat said:


> Market forces will not determine the result in China. The Chinese government will.


This the key problem with uber in China. The Chinese govt. isn't going to let uber take huge profits out the country and avoid taxes while their countries rideshare company loses profits. Uber can't bully a communist country. They won't stand for it. The chinese will always protect their own.

China only allows 34 foreign films into the country a year. If Uber really think the chinese govt will allow them to win the rideshare battle their crazy.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Rat said:


> There is a pool of pax that just will not take a taxi but will take an Uber. I've had many pax tell me they took a taxi once or twice and it was such a bad experience they quit using them. The Uber came along and offered them a much better alternative at a much better price. When I drove a cab, half my passengers were crackheads. Cabs will still get those pax because they can't get credit cards.


You are partially right.
Uber pax are too cheap to take cabs.
The vast majority of nighttime pax were so cheap before Uber that they risked and received DUIs.

Theres a classic post on this board where the driver quotes his piece of crap pax..."we take Uber from bar to bar cause it's too hot to walk, and we get free water instead of $2 at the bar... and with four of us riding, its practically free..."


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Uber = Pryamid scheme.

In order to feed the beast they have to raise rates and cut driver pay. Both options make whatever is attractive about uber unattractive for drivers and riders. The constant expanding and search for more $$$ is classic pyramid scheme desperation. Eventually the new wells run dry and there's no where left to turn.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> You are partially right.
> Uber pax are too cheap to take cabs.
> The vast majority of nighttime pax were so cheap before Uber that they risked and received DUIs.
> 
> Theres a classic post on this board where the driver quotes his piece of crap pax..."we take Uber from bar to bar cause it's too hot to walk, and we get free water instead of $2 at the bar... and with four of us riding, its practically free..."


It's not only the price. Pax have complained about dirty, smelly cabs and "sketchy" drivers, too.


----------



## CCW (Dec 25, 2015)

Some say Uber standard software programmer package (fresh Ph.D) is something like

one time sign on/relocation cash bonus $30,000~$40,000
+
$110,000~$140,000 cash
+
$35000~$100,000 bonus each year if you dont get fired
+
~5000 restricted stock unit , worth ~$250,000 , some say one can get 18000 RSU(~$900,000)

The problem is that Uber HR always repeat "upside", "potential" and trying to make one think the future is great. This reminds me of GroupOn.

If you dont agree the number I listed, that's fine. I dont work for Uber. I only heard this from a friend's friend who works there. You are welcome to post your number. glassdoor is a way to see the pay.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Why is anyone still throwing cash into this money pit? It is obvious US courts are against them when it comes to labor laws and their insurance is shit so it is a bodily injury nightmare waiting to happen. 

15 years from now we'll be laughing at that thin called Uber in our driverless cabs. That's the reality.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Lnsky said:


> Why is anyone still throwing cash into this money pit? It is obvious US courts are against them when it comes to labor laws and their insurance is shit so it is a bodily injury nightmare waiting to happen.
> 
> 15 years from now we'll be laughing at that thin called Uber in our driverless cabs. That's the reality.


If I'm not mistaken, to date, Uber has only lost one labor law case to one plaintiff. They have prevailed in many individual cases, or settled. You just don't hear about them on the news.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> If I'm not mistaken, to date, Uber has only lost one labor law case to one plaintiff. They have prevailed in many individual cases, or settled. You just don't hear about them on the news.


Settling has hurt them.
All the little nibbles add up. Out of court settlements, fixed tickets for law breaking drivers using real lawyers, the entire nation of China.
Money's gone, loanshark time.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Settling has hurt them.
> All the little nibbles add up. Out of court settlements, fixed tickets for law breaking drivers using real lawyers, the entire nation of China.
> Money's gone, loanshark time.


True, but settlements don't set legal precedence. The one case they lost also was specifically mentioned as not setting a legal precedent for other drivers.


----------



## UberxGTA (Dec 1, 2015)

andaas said:


> Uber burns through a LOT of cash in driver recruitment (referral bonuses, etc.), driver retention (guarantees), and finally passenger recruitment and retention (free ride credits, etc.). Most of any actual profit earned is spent on operational costs (local office staff, support, background checks and insurance).


You forgot lawyers fees!


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Old Rocker said:


> If I'm not mistaken, to date, Uber has only lost one labor law case to one plaintiff. They have prevailed in many individual cases, or settled. You just don't hear about them on the news.


They've paid millions in CA and Mass. To keep drivers from being classified as employees. Suit was just filed in Austin against both Uber and Lyft for failure to give notice.

Given that they had every option to stay and didn't notify drivers of the drop dead date prior to election I think drivers have a case. A judge in another district advised the attorney representing a class that the $100M the attorney was seeking was too low and advised they should be seeking $1B. A judge told the litigator they need to be seeking $1B minimum for a small class of drivers.

Now that's just one judge but it is part of a larger pattern. The courts arent sympathizing with Uber. These cases aren't getting dismissed.

Then on the other side passengers are suing and winning too. Uber is shitting out of both ends.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Lnsky said:


> They've paid millions in CA and Mass. To keep drivers from being classified as employees. Suit was just filed in Austin against both Uber and Lyft for failure to give notice.
> 
> Given that they had every option to stay and didn't notify drivers of the drop dead date prior to election I think drivers have a case. A judge in another district advised the attorney representing a class that the $100M the attorney was seeking was too low and advised they should be seeking $1B. A judge told the litigator they need to be seeking $1B minimum for a small class of drivers.
> 
> ...


Personally, I don't feel that drivers are employees. In fact, going to an employee model would destroy not only Uber and Left, but the competitors trying to come on line who have better driver support models. Most taxi drivers are ICs. I think it would be difficult to rule that U/L drivers are employees when cab drivers are ICs.

If you look at the IRS or Bureau of Labor checklists of employee vs, IC, 'rideshare' drivers may qualify on at most one of the ten or eleven points.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Old Rocker said:


> Personally, I don't feel that drivers are employees. In fact, going to an employee model would destroy not only Uber and Left, but the competitors trying to come on line who have better driver support models. Most taxi drivers are ICs. I think it would be difficult to rule that U/L drivers are employees when cab drivers are ICs.
> 
> If you look at the IRS or Bureau of Labor checklists of employee vs, IC, 'rideshare' drivers may qualify on at most one of the ten or eleven points.


The relationship between cab drivers and cab companies are completely different from that of Uber and its drivers. Ideally drivers are independent subs. But due to Uber's over controlling rules it puts on drivers they have been deemed employees in many courts. Also because of hourly guarantees. If Uber went back to paying drivers enough to keep them on the road and accepting rides without stringent rule and guarantees they would have remained classified as contractors.

You are right that Uber can't succeed with them classified as employees. I'm willing to bet against Uber. Their business model won't sustain.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Lnsky said:


> The relationship between cab drivers and cab companies are completely different from that of Uber and its drivers. Ideally drivers are independent subs. But due to Uber's over controlling rules it puts on drivers they have been deemed employees in many courts. Also because of hourly guarantees. If Uber went back to paying drivers enough to keep them on the road and accepting rides without stringent rule and guarantees they would have remained classified as contractors.
> 
> You are right that Uber can't succeed with them classified as employees. I'm willing to bet against Uber. Their business model won't sustain.


Only one court (in CA) has ruled one driver as an employee afaik and that was for unemployment compensation. Not trying to bicker or defend Uber, just trying to keep the facts straight. I read that an unemployment claim against Uber in Texas was denied.


----------



## UberReallySucks (Jul 17, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> True, but settlements don't set legal precedence. The one case they lost also was specifically mentioned as not setting a legal precedent for other drivers.


No settling does not set legal precedent but good old strippers do


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Old Rocker said:


> Only one court (in CA) has ruled one driver as an employee afaik and that was for unemployment compensation. Not trying to bicker or defend Uber, just trying to keep the facts straight. I read that an unemployment claim against Uber in Texas was denied.


Uber settled in her cases to prevent the ruling of drivers as employees. They paid their way out of that ruling.

As for Texas, Texas is anti-labor and would do away with the minimum wage if they could. But Austin isn't Texas so the suits against U/L may actually stand a chance.

Austin indicted Rick Perry and he was and is famously persona non grata in the town.

I don't think Uber drivers should be classed as employees. Yet because of their odd dealings with drivers and rendering of service in general it is coming to the courts. We shall see.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Old Rocker said:


> True, but settlements don't set legal precedence. The one case they lost also was specifically mentioned as not setting a legal precedent for other drivers.


I've now lost any and all respect I have for you as a person to voice an opinion. Of course settling doesn't set a precedent.

You pay loads of money to settle and avoid and adverse precedent setting decision.

Smh I'm sorry I wasted minutes of my day conversing with you I thought you were actually trying to be a person not an endorsement.


----------



## Choochie (Jan 4, 2015)

Lnsky said:


> They've paid millions in CA and Mass.


They haven't paid anything yet.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Choochie said:


> They haven't paid anything yet.


Ha yeah they have judgements against them to be more accurate.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Personally, I don't feel that drivers are employees. In fact, going to an employee model would destroy not only Uber and Left, but the competitors trying to come on line who have better driver support models. Most taxi drivers are ICs. I think it would be difficult to rule that U/L drivers are employees when cab drivers are ICs.
> 
> If you look at the IRS or Bureau of Labor checklists of employee vs, IC, 'rideshare' drivers may qualify on at most one of the ten or eleven points.


Agreed. They are IC's. And few want be classified otherwise. The issue is Uber's control and coercion. If they want to control everything, then they should hire employees.


----------



## Phoenix666 (Mar 6, 2015)

andaas said:


> Actual Uber "employees" (not drivers, not support agents), will typically have signed contracts that grant them a fixed number of stock options at secured purchase prices. Obviously, as Uber currently has no publicly traded stock, these options are currently worthless, however, they do represent a fixed number of "shares" of stock when (if) Uber goes public. At that time, employees will be able to purchase their vested options at the prices identified in their contracts.
> 
> So the author wrote that correctly. Uber *does* have employees. Those employees receive normal paychecks, have benefits packages, etc. And I assure you, the majority of those employees have stock option packages.


LOL stock options, those will never get cashed. Uber will never go public. Eventually Travis & his original investors will sell, raking in billions. Uber will collapse, those that got burned by the purchase will hunt Travis down and he'll likely be killed. Then his body will put in a Prius taken to a junk yard and put through the crusher. Like Jimmy Hoffa.


----------



## Zoplay (Jun 17, 2016)

Uber shot themselves in the foot when they decided to make an effort to control the entire livery industry, instead of just marketing their nifty technology products. So they have to face these issue and they have to take care of their employees.


----------



## LVN8V_BC43 (Jun 3, 2016)

Probably to apply toward their 'Agenda 21 driven goal' to institute robo-cars as the technology unfolds & becomes more prevalent in society (inevitable btw). They are (were at least) in serious discussions with Google i believe on rolling the driver-less cars out within 4 years or some insane number like that.

Get smart on Agenda 21--it's in high gear in Cali, but being employed/indoctrinated across the Globe. Fluber/Lyft are perfect tech platforms to slowly 're-train' the "free-man's" thoughts on transportation.


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Settling has hurt them.
> All the little nibbles add up.


Death of a thousand cuts.


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

UberxGTA said:


> You forgot lawyers fees!


Here is Toronto, they Use Bay Street law firms who definitely don't charge cheaply.


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

stuber said:


> Agreed. They are IC's. And few want be classified otherwise. The issue is Uber's control and coercion. If they want to control everything, then they should hire employees.


If I was a true Independent Contractor, I should be able to ignore all UberPool pings with no forced logoff penalty.


----------



## UberxGTA (Dec 1, 2015)

PoorBasterd said:


> If I was a true Independent Contractor, I should be able to ignore all UberPool pings with no forced logoff penalty.


Instead of ignoring all pool rides just collect cancel fees. Just park out of sight but within arrival range. Cancel after 2 minute for $2 or cancel after 4 min for $4.50 in your pocket.


----------



## Chicago88 (Feb 7, 2016)

Tequila Jake said:


> I think he's a naive genius. Blockchain is the underlying technology behind extremely distributed technologies like Bitcoin. Theoretically a single app could connect every potential rider with every potential driver with no other intermediary.
> 
> However, it completely ignores the real-world limitations we face. Who determines whether a driver has had background checks, proper vehicle registration, etc. Does the driver have any locally required licenses. Management of geofences (like airport restrictions) also presents a problem.
> 
> ...


Thank you! FINALLY I understand Bitcoin. I've read block chain, peer to peer, blah ba blob ba blob, etc.... You explanation connecting 2 parties directly explains the Bitcoin exchange and helps me understand why it has a value... reading is a skill, I'm getting better.


----------



## Chicago88 (Feb 7, 2016)

Lnsky said:


> Why is anyone still throwing cash into this money pit? It is obvious US courts are against them when it comes to labor laws and their insurance is shit so it is a bodily injury nightmare waiting to happen.
> 
> 15 years from now we'll be laughing at that thin called Uber in our driverless cabs. That's the reality.


What's really funny is people believe Uber will go to driverless cars.... Uber has zero technology for wireless cars. Goggle? Yes they have that and are developing it consistently but Uber will never have it. So one might say Uber will partner or buy that technology - won't happen. Google has zero interest in partnering with Uber, they could but Uber's dime store technology from a high school kid isn't important enough to Google. I'm exaggerating but the point is Uber is the simple almost useless technology in rideshare driverless cars. When driverless cars come Uber will long be gone or reinvented into what ever "the plan" is.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Personally, I don't feel that drivers are employees. In fact, going to an employee model would destroy not only Uber and Left, but the competitors trying to come on line who have better driver support models. Most taxi drivers are ICs. I think it would be difficult to rule that U/L drivers are employees when cab drivers are ICs.
> 
> If you look at the IRS or Bureau of Labor checklists of employee vs, IC, 'rideshare' drivers may qualify on at most one of the ten or eleven points.


The California Labor commission has already ruled that per the law Uber drivers already are employees as opposed to independent contractors. Uber controls every aspect of it's drivers "business", while taxi companies don't do anything other than rent the car and provide dispatching service, but when your a taxi driver 75% of your business comes from street hails.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Bolympia said:


> The California Labor commission has already ruled that per the law Uber drivers already are employees as opposed to independent contractors. Uber controls every aspect of it's drivers "business", while taxi companies don't do anything other than rent the car and provide dispatching service, but when your a taxi driver 75% of your business comes from street hails.


I could be wrong, but the ruling only applied to one single individual and was specifically noted as not setting a legal precedent.

If they had so ruled in a blanket fashion, why aren't all Cali drivers now employees working for $9.00 an hour, 32 hours a week max, on the schedule Uber assigns them, and in the area Uber designates they drive in?


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

See...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-uber-driver-is-an-employee-not-a-contractor

Only one case for one person a year ago and none since.


----------

