# Uber notice to me about acceptance rates...



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Uber takes trip acceptance rates seriously and your account has been identified as having an *acceptance rate below your peers.*

Each rider request is sent to the nearest vehicle to a rider on Uber and therefore a lower acceptance rate creates higher ETAs for our partners and riders. Higher ETAs create poor experiences for customers and lower earnings for our partners._​ - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear UberFolk -

Thanks for the heads-up and information.

Since the rate cuts in January I have had to be very careful with which rides I accept since it is no longer profitable to drive more than a few minutes to pick-up a passenger. I am very happy to give rides - I actually love it! But I can't afford to pay out of my pocket to complete a trip&#8230; I am sure you can understand that I need to make money, not lose money driving Uber rides - and unfortunately, Uber continues to send me ride requests that are 15, 20 and even 30 minutes or more away from my location.

Adding to the acceptance rate problem is that I drive UberSELECT, and there are times when I want to only accept UberSELECT ride requests&#8230; but in my market, Uber will not add a second profile to my account that will receive only UberSELECT ride requests. That's a shame, because with UberSELECT ride requests, I can afford to drive considerably further to pick-up a rider - which would mean a much higher acceptance rate.

So, just as I am bearing with Uber as it works on different models and pricing, please bear with me as I exercise my best judgment as to how to best serve riders and Uber - while also not losing money.

Thank you!


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Those all work great until they don't. Then you'll have to beg for your job back with promises of service to all std. xer's.


----------



## Casandria (Dec 20, 2014)

I keep expecting to get an email like that, but I guess they aren't even bothering here anymore since we're a week away from D Day.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Those all work great until they don't. Then you'll have to beg for your job back with promises of service to all std. xer's.


They can't (legally) deactivate me over acceptance rate issues. 
Doesn't mean they won't, but they'd have to find another reason.
The partner agreement specifically provides the partner/driver the right to accept ONLY the rides requests they choose.


----------



## Casandria (Dec 20, 2014)

@Michael - Cleveland There are a LOT of things that Uber can't legally do that they do anyway. Just sayin...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uber CSR replies:

_Hi Michael,
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to explain.

I completely understand your stance.
We want the Uber system to be as reliable as possible so riders are always able to get a ride when they need one. To help make that happen, we use acceptance rates to encourage drivers to accept all trip requests.
Here are a few tips you can use to make sure you have a high acceptance rate:
_



_Accept all trip requests that you receive.
_
_If you're not ready to accept requests, be sure to go offline.
_
_Make sure the volume is turned up on your phone so you can always hear the sound when a new request is received._
_Hope that helps clear this up for you, and please let me know if I can help with anything else.
Sincerely,
Keesha 
 Uber | Community Support_​
----------------------------------

I reply to CSR:

Hi Keesha -

Thanks for your reply and your tips.

Drivers also want the Uber system to be as reliable as possible so riders are always able to get a ride when they need one.

If Uber wants to see 90%-100% acceptance rates, *here are a few tips for Uber*:

- Do not send ride requests to drivers who are more than 5 minutes away from the rider.

- Raise the rates to levels where a driver can make a profit. Stop publishing 'recommended' rates that are lower than what it costs the driver to complete a pick-up and trip.

- Allow SELECT/LUX/XL drivers in ALL markets to be available for both X and SELECT/XL rides - OR - SELECT/XL ONLY rides.

- Allow drivers to set an adjustable maximum radius (or 'time-to-pick-up') from their current location so that they are not penalized for exercising their right to decline rides that require them to drive unprofitable, ridiculous distances to pick-up a min fare rider. Write an algorithm to calculate the profitability of the ride based on driver location, rider location and rider DESTINATION - and let the driver choose the threshold for accepting the ride request. (In other words, write the driver app so that it supports the ability of the independent drivers to make intelligent decisions based on the 'rights' afforded them in their Uber Partner Agreement)

- Stop running promotions which require a driver to give-up their right to not accept a ride request (due to distance to pick-up or rider rating).

- Do not count driver non-acceptance or cancellations against the driver when they are made to riders with a rating below, oh, let's say 4.0.

- As revenues and profitability for Uber rises, LOWER the cost of using the Uber app/system to drivers: Put the incentives in the right place to get drivers to drive more and reward drivers who drive more by charging 20% on the first $50 in a day, and then 15% on the next $50, and then only 10% on all fares over the first $100 in a day. (Then sit back and just watch how much longer drivers stay on the road with the Uber app on.)​
Thank you for your time!

- Michael


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They can't (legally) deactivate me over acceptance rate issues.
> Doesn't mean they won't, but they'd have to find another reason.
> The partner agreement specifically provides the partner/driver the right to accept ONLY the rides requests they choose.


What Uber doesn't want is a lot of non accepted pings to any pax. No matter how good you are or what claims you make that are in your best interests, acceptance rates are important to them. We are NOT.

Rather than give Uber the pleasure of deactivation, I just reduced my driving posture with them in hope they will change THEIR system so as to not put me in THEIR imposed position. My position is essentially the same as yours. I can not drive for a LOSS. And won't. So, the choice was easy. Either they can change or I have to Uber OFF, which I did. Debating the merits of what you think is your contract position is worthless. You stay at their will or not. And you sure as hell aren't in any position to sue them or if you were and had any sense, you wouldn't piss away a penny to try and do so because it's stupid.

Let's just get real about the fact that Uber makes money from DRIVER STUPIDITY.

Smart people don't UBERX.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Casandria said:


> @Michael - Cleveland There are a LOT of things that Uber can't legally do that they do anyway. Just sayin...


Yes..., there are. But this is one I don't think they'll mess with. They don't mind ignoring, fighting and lobbying regulatory issues, but the last thing want is to spend $5,000 a pop in attorney fees and court costs to defend each minor local small claims suit seeking $3,000 in damages. It wouldn't be cost effective.

The whole 'acceptance rate' thing is about 'scaring' drivers into accepting all rides. Under the current agreements, the only thing they can do is send these 'reminders' and encourage drivers to accept all rides.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes..., there are. But this is one I don't think they'll mess with. They don't mind ignoring, fighting and lobbying regulatory issues, but the last thing want is to spend $5,000 a pop in attorney fees and court costs to defend each minor local small claims suit seeking $3,000 in damages. It wouldn't be cost effective.


I've been through this drill with 'little people' too Michael. The people who thought they could bend over my company over their bullshit claims in small claims court.

Just up them to district court and MAKE THEM PAY OUT THE ASS for their bullshit claims in attorney fees.

*Guess what? ALL bullshit claims disappear when the claimants have to open their wallet to PLAY.*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> What Uber doesn't want is a lot of non accepted pings to any pax. No matter how good you are or what claims you make that are in your best interests, acceptance rates are important to them. We are NOT.
> 
> Rather than give Uber the pleasure of deactivation, I just reduced my driving posture with them in hope they will change THEIR system so as to not put me in THEIR imposed position. My position is essentially the same as yours. I can not drive for a LOSS. And won't. So, the choice was easy. Either they can change or I have to Uber OFF, which I did. Debating the merits of what you think is your contract position is worthless. You stay at their will or not. And you sure as hell aren't in any position to sue them or if you were and had any sense, you wouldn't piss away a penny to try and do so because it's stupid..


I guess you missed the post here from the Uber CSR saying that small claims suits are the ONLY way to get anything settled with Uber?

But hopefully, it's a non-issue and Uber won't deactivate a 5*/4.9* driver doing over 100 trips a week due to an acceptance rate that isn't to their liking but meets the standards of THEIR agreement.

Doing so would open up a can of worms they don't want opened.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*Has anyone reading this 
ever been deactivated 
for having a low acceptance rate 
(while still doing 100 highly rated rides a week?*


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I guess you missed the post here from the Uber CSR saying that small claims suits are the ONLY way to get anything settled with Uber?


They'll snap your little rear in pieces, just like I would. Try it.

The first anti to play ball at District Court for a decent attorney is 5-7 grand, assuming there are no counter claims to fight off from your opponent, which will double the attorney fees.

I'd have you in an attorney fee catch 22 before the first court date even got close. 


> But hopefully, it's a non-issue and Uber won't deactivate a 5*/4.9* driver doing over 100 trips a week due to an acceptance rate that isn't to their liking but meets the standards of THEIR agreement.


You forget. Uber doesn't give a **** for guys like us. We're a dime a dozen. And being a trouble maker will only assure your speedy exit with a bunch of your wasted time on the way out the door.


> Doing so would open up a can of worms they don't want opened.


I'm sure Travis' attorney hordes are trembling in their boots.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> They'll snap your little rear in pieces, just like I would. Try it. The first anti to play ball at District Court for a decent attorney is 5-7 grand, assuming there are no counter claims to fight off from your opponent, which will double the attorney fees.


Please don't offer legal advice if you don't know what you're talking about... seriously... look up the rules for small claims in your jurisdiction.
In mine, I can file a claim (and have done so several times over the years) for under $100 and do not need to be represented by counsel. The defendant must appear, represented by counsel (if it is a business). The defendant bears all court costs if the plaintiff prevails.

*ALL companies will attempt to settle a small claims suit before allowing it to go to trial.*


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sorry Michael, but suing Uber over your pittance is about the worst advice I've heard yet. Justice is only for rich people. If you haven't learned that yet I hope you do soon.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

_"Here are a few tips you can use to make sure you have a high acceptance rate:_

_Accept all trip requests that you receive."_
ROFLMAO! To get a high acceptance rate, accept all trip requests. Really?!?!

Stanford or MIT must be missing another genius.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Sorry Michael, but suing Uber over your pittance is about the worst advice I've heard yet. Justice is only for rich people. If you haven't learned that yet I hope you do soon.


Forgive me if I let my own experience in these matters (rather than your opinion) guide me.
In the meantime, I'm not suing anyone.
*We're talking about a hypothetical* - one which I have no reason at this time to believe will ever become a reality.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Forgive me if I let my own experience in these matters (rather than your opinion) guide me. In the meantime, I'm not suing anyone. We're talking about a hypothetical - one which I have no reason at this time to believe will ever become a reality.


Your little list of exchanges with some irrelevant CSR is not much different than my own.

DID it result in any changes? No. Nor did I expect it to.

I'd expect that they'll eventually move you to the next stage which will be cancellation. Maybe not soon if you keep your head down. But surprise us with that not happening.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> _"Here are a few tips you can use to make sure you have a high acceptance rate:_
> 
> _Accept all trip requests that you receive."_
> ROFLMAO! To get a high acceptance rate, accept all trip requests. Really?!?!
> ...


Seriously **** those clown asses at Uber. They can kiss my once a week fare ass.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Seriously **** those clown asses at Uber. They can kiss my once a week fare ass.


Any chance we can get this thread to stay helpful and on-topic?
hehe... what am I thinking!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Your little list of exchanges with some irrelevant CSR is not much different than my own.
> DID it result in any changes? No. Nor did I expect it to.


You miss the point.
I always create a documented history of my asking for clarification of anything in the partner agreement.
Answering implied threats about acceptance rates is one of those issues.
I'm 'on the record', if ever a record be needed.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Any chance we can get this thread to stay helpful and on-topic?
> hehe... what am I thinking!


Yeah, you can be real helpful and tell us how long you can pull your low acceptance rate stuff on them without being deactivated.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> They'll snap your little rear in pieces, just like I would. Try it.


Sorry, but your opinion is meaningless for me.

As a individual, and a small business owner, I've never lost a case in small claims court.

In one case, I sued a very prominent litigating attorney in one of the top law firms in the country - he swore he'd bury me. He won in small claims, so I appealed. He called to tell me he'd 'won in small claims and would bury me on appeal'. And he did. I appealed to the circuit court - and he called, laughed at me and told me I should just settle.

The circuit court overturned the small claims ruling, admonished the judge and found in my favor.
(this was over a contract dispute where the att'y tried to weasel out of his obligations to my company)

I know when I'm right - and have a case.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

I'd only say the attorney was a dumb ass.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> I'd only say the attorney was a dumb ass.


yup - another multi-millionaire dumb-ass.
And I'm sure that being a dumb-ass is how he got to be a multi-millionaire attorney.
He just thought he could intimidate me.
He was wrong.



> Yeah, you can be real helpful and tell us how long you can pull your low acceptance rate stuff on them without being deactivated.


Yup.... I guess we'll see, because just like you, I won't [knowingly] make unprofitable pick-ups.
Wish me luck.[/QUOTE]


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> yup - another multi-millionaire dumb-ass.
> And I'm sure that being a dumb-ass is how he got to be a multi-millionaire attorney.
> He just thought he could intimidate me.
> He was wrong.


Any attorney who would set foot in small claims court is a dumb ass.



> Yup.... I guess we'll see, because just like you, I won't make [knowingly] unprofitable pick-ups.
> Wish me luck.


Your choice is only to keep doing what you are doing. Comply. Or sue.

That choice is easy. Just let us know how it works out for you.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

elelegido said:


> _"Here are a few tips you can use to make sure you have a high acceptance rate:_
> 
> _Accept all trip requests that you receive."_
> ROFLMAO! To get a high acceptance rate, accept all trip requests. Really?!?!
> ...


I guess the next question to ask CSR is why you need to be concerned about acceptance rates since your contract doesn't mention them.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They can't (legally) deactivate me over acceptance rate issues.
> Doesn't mean they won't, but they'd have to find another reason.
> The partner agreement specifically provides the partner/driver the right to accept ONLY the rides requests they choose.


That may be true, but we know damn well if they want to get rid of you, they will trump up some other reason.


----------



## Mike78 (Feb 25, 2015)

I recieved last 2 weeks this one: *[UBER] M, it looks like you're accepting less than 80% of trip requests. Please sign offline when you are not in a position to accept requests. Accepting at least 80% of trips will help you earn more money, keep the Uber system working smoothly, and ensure you can continue to use the Uber platform. Thanks! *Then I asked them, what's going on?? Because a accepted all requests, only thing is, when sometime I'm accepting requests it shows "Error" and automatically turns off and program may calculated like I did not accept.. But it's not my fault if it shows "error"...... They answered , like it happens sometime and if I really accepted all that'll be OK. .. I recieved summary for last week and it shows my acceptance rate 68%, but I accepted all.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I guess the next question to ask CSR is why you need to be concerned about acceptance rates since your contract doesn't mention them.


Not worth bothering with; I just set up an email filter on "Uber" and "acceptance" to have these mails sent straight to the spam folder.


----------



## moni4nuttin (Oct 22, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Has anyone reading this
> ever been deactivated
> for having a low acceptance rate
> (while still doing 100 highly rated rides a week?*


Yes.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

moni4nuttin said:


> Yes.


Please elaborate. You or a 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand story about some other driver?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Not worth bothering with; I just set up an email filter on "Uber" and "acceptance" to have these mails sent straight to the spam folder.


I think most drivers will slide by for 75-80%. But below that for long the texts start to come in from San Fran and probably sure the local managers then have to deal with 'the problem driver' and answer up the chain for it.


----------



## moni4nuttin (Oct 22, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Please elaborate. You or a 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand story about some other driver?


I was deactivated because I refused to drive 15-20mins to pick up a pax. I had replied to an email suggesting that my acceptance rate was below 80%. I clearly made it clear that I would not drive that far to pickup a minimum fare. I was placed on probation on Monday. I just simply sent them an email the next day requesting to be deactivated pure and simple. I have mailed in the uber phone today. I drove for 12months and clocking out at 60,000 miles on a 2014 Toyota venza.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

moni4nuttin said:


> I was deactivated because I refused to drive 15-20mins to pick up a pax. I had replied to an email suggesting that my acceptance rate was below 80%. I clearly made it clear that I would not drive that far to pickup a minimum fare. I was placed on probation on Monday. I just simply sent them an email the next day requesting to be deactivated pure and simple. I have mailed in the uber phone today. I drove for 12months and clocking out at 60,000 miles on a 2014 Toyota venza.


And you were pretty active up to that point? And what driver rating?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I think most drivers will slide by for 75-80%. But below that for long the texts start to come in from San Fran and probably sure the local managers then have to deal with 'the problem driver' and answer up the chain for it.


But... I'm an independent contractor, running my own business. I evaluate each job proposal offered to me by Uber and decide if I think it will be profitable or not. As the owner of my business, as Uber likes to say it is, I'm the only one who could possibly make that decision.

Unless I'm really an employee, in which case Uber owes me thousands for car payments, gas, maintenance etc etc. They can pay me that money now in cash or by bank deposit and fire me any time they please.


----------



## moni4nuttin (Oct 22, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> And you were pretty active up to that point? And what driver rating?


I did more than 60 trips a week. Mostly airport pickups and drop off. Rating was at 4.89.
I'll check the forum from time to time. The entertainment value of this site can't be overlooked.

For those of you that still drive for uber: 
Good luck and I hope it works for you.

uber off.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> But... I'm an independent contractor, running my own business. I evaluate each job proposal offered to me by Uber and decide if I think it will be profitable or not. As the owner of my business, as Uber likes to say it is, I'm the only one who could possibly make that decision.
> 
> Unless I'm really an employee, in which case Uber owes me thousands for car payments, gas, maintenance etc etc. They can pay me that money now in cash or by bank deposit and fire me any time they please.


Oh **** Uber. They don't give a **** about our fantasy IC businesses and how they should be operated other than what they dictate in their contract, as follows:

"Additionally, *you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests* for Transportation Services *while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users *of Uber's mobile application. *If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."*

So all this wah wah pee pee whining by drivers* doesn't mean SQUAT. We've already agreed to the above.*

Even if Uber is out of their ****ING MINDS.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

moni4nuttin said:


> I did more than 60 trips a week. Mostly airport pickups and drop off. Rating was at 4.89.
> I'll check the forum from time to time. The entertainment value of this site can't be overlooked.
> 
> For those of you that still drive for uber:
> ...


Well, good for you. Uber can stick their half assed business ideas up some other dummy drivers rear end.

Ain't going to be mine. I put up with a lot of crap when the pay was acceptable.

*It ain't any more. They can abuse the remaining idiots.*


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Guess Michael should have a good look at what's coming by now.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Oh **** Uber. They don't give a **** about our fantasy IC businesses and how they should be operated other than what they dictate in their contract, as follows:
> 
> "Additionally, *you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests* for Transportation Services *while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users *of Uber's mobile application. *If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."*
> 
> ...


There's an IF in there. "If you do not wish to accept requests for a period of time you will log off". When I'm online, I _always_ want to accept requests in general; otherwise I'd be doing something else instead of farting about in a car all night. Whether or not business sense permits me to accept individual trips is assessed on a trip by trip basis.

Now, if the contract said, "If you do not want to be sent trip requests, or accept trip requests, which will be potentially unprofitable for you then you will log off.", that'd be a different story. That I did not agree to.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Please don't offer legal advice if you don't know what you're talking about.


You're the one who sounds like a jail house lawyer.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> There's an IF in there. "If you do not wish to accept requests for a period of time you will log off". When I'm online, I _always_ want to accept requests in general; otherwise I'd be doing something else instead of farting about in a car all night. Whether or not business sense permits me to accept individual trips is assessed on a trip by trip basis.
> 
> Now, if the contract said, "If you do not want to be sent trip requests, or accept trip requests, which will be potentially unprofitable for you then you will log off.", that'd be a different story. That I did not agree to.


I'd say you have a delusional reading of fact.

*failure to accept* constitutes BREACH.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

mike888 said:


> You're the one who sounds like a jail house lawyer.


So many drivers just don't get the fact that Uber's contract is only for Uber.

They don't give one **** about the drivers. That contract AIN'T in your behalves. If it was you'd have had your own attorney PROTECT YOU in the contract.

Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact this shitty little driver agreement is nothing but the right to use Uber's platform on their terms. It provides the drivers nothing more than access to their platform on Uber's sole terms.

If you don't like it, tough shit. Get lost.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I'd say you have a delusional reading of fact.
> 
> *failure to accept* constitutes BREACH.


Disagree. It seems you do - neither "failure to accept" or "breach" can be seen anywhere in your quoted text from the contract.

Please post an extract from the contract that states that a driver can be deactivated for refusing trip requests.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Disagree. It seems you do - neither "failure to accept" or "breach" can be seen anywhere in your quoted text from the contract.


Read it again. Failure to accept is in there and notes this being your FAILURE.

"Additionally, you acknowledge that* your* repeated *failure* to accept User requests"

Just because you wish to receive the requests if that doesn't translate to accepting them YOU FAILED in your wish.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Here are ALL the driver rights in the driver agreement:

"Termination. *Either party may terminate this Agreement: (a) without cause* at any time upon
seven (7) days prior written notice to the other party"


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Read it again. Failure to accept is in there and notes this being your FAILURE.
> 
> "Additionally, you acknowledge that* your* repeated *failure* to accept User requests"
> 
> Just because you wish to receive the requests if that doesn't translate to accepting them YOU FAILED in your wish.


What I meant, but didn't communicate well, was that "failure to accept" and "breach" are not mentioned together.

It says, "*you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests*for Transportation Services while* you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users *of Uber's mobile application."

Big deal. OK, I accept that me not agreeing to all requests may contribute to a negative user experience. Potholes, traffic lights and my Abba Gold CD might also create a negative user experience for some. But the contract doesn't say that any of these, or request refusals, are grounds for deactivation.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> What I meant, but didn't communicate well, was that "failure to accept" and "breach" are not mentioned together.
> 
> It says, "*you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests*for Transportation Services while* you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users *of Uber's mobile application."
> 
> Big deal. OK, I accept that me not agreeing to all requests may contribute to a negative user experience. Potholes, traffic lights and my Abba Gold CD might also create a negative user experience. But the contract doesn't say that any of these, or request refusals, are grounds for deactivation.


Uber doesn't even need grounds. They can cut any driver loose that they please without cause.


----------



## moni4nuttin (Oct 22, 2014)

It's an established fact that Uber doesn't care about the drivers. A csr told me that they got a memo that has instructed them to start winding down on the so called gurantees. So, in the coming weeks/months fuber will begin scrapping this policy.


----------



## ChrisInABQ (Oct 21, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> What Uber doesn't want is a lot of non accepted pings to any pax. No matter how good you are or what claims you make that are in your best interests, acceptance rates are important to them. We are NOT.
> 
> Rather than give Uber the pleasure of deactivation, I just reduced my driving posture with them in hope they will change THEIR system so as to not put me in THEIR imposed position. My position is essentially the same as yours. I can not drive for a LOSS. And won't. So, the choice was easy. Either they can change or I have to Uber OFF, which I did. Debating the merits of what you think is your contract position is worthless. You stay at their will or not. And you sure as hell aren't in any position to sue them or if you were and had any sense, you wouldn't piss away a penny to try and do so because it's stupid.
> 
> ...


Could you please revise that to something like "Smart people don't UBERX for $0.90/mile"? So, if your city's rates are still $1.30/mile and you have no other versions of Uber to drive for, are you still not-smart for UBERXing?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisInABQ said:


> Could you please revise that to something like "Smart people don't UBERX for $0.90/mile"? So, if your city's rates are still $1.30/mile and you have no other versions of Uber to drive for, are you still not-smart for UBERXing?


The point in question (originally) was the gross inequity of driving UberX std. rates with a Select or XL vehicle without the option NOT to do so with Uber (or Lyft for that matter.)

Would you agree that driving for a loss is not smart? You also understand that it is in Ubers GREAT interests to have their cheap ass Xstd fares hauled around in high dollar vehicles by ANY driver stupid enough to do so?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Uber doesn't even need grounds. They can cut any driver loose that they please without cause.


Agreed. But firing while giving no reason is one thing. Firing using non-acceptance of pings as the reason is another. Do you see the difference? In both cases, the driver can legitimately be fired, but Uber admitting that the driver was let go for disobeying their specific requirements regarding ping acceptance could help convince a court that the employee was, indeed, an employee and therefore due expenses incurred during that employment.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I'd say you have a delusional reading of fact.
> 
> *failure to accept* constitutes BREACH.


This is false. The driver is specifically given the option to accept, decline or ignore requests.

From section 2.4 of the contract:

"You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services"


----------



## SloanJones (Sep 23, 2014)

Since rate cuts hit san francisco I've become the ultimate "cherry picker" .... for the most part i only drive surge rates and airport hauls, my acceptance rate is in the shitter but I'm a 4.88 driver who completes around 130 trips a week. I've gotten this warning email on three occasions and just ignored it and I'm still here. Back in the day i had no problem accepting over 90% because the rates were such that it was almost always profitable even without surge. It is a bummer that so much mental calculation has to go into accepting trips at this point. I guess in a perfect world fares would be 30-40% higher yet still be cheaper than a cab thus making surge less frequent... drivers are happy, pax are happy and everyone gets a puppy.... what do I know though, I'm just a lowly X driver


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> This is false. The driver is specifically given the option to accept, decline or ignore requests.
> 
> From section 2.4 of the contract:
> 
> "You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services"


Not so my friend. If drivers don't want to accept pings the are to go offline and not to contribute to a negative user experience. *The option to decline is to leave the app off. *

*"If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."*


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

SloanJones said:


> Since rate cuts hit san francisco I've become the ultimate "cherry picker" .... for the most part i only drive surge rates and airport hauls, my acceptance rate is in the shitter but I'm a 4.88 driver who completes around 130 trips a week. I've gotten this warning email on three occasions and just ignored it and I'm still here. Back in the day i had no problem accepting over 90% because the rates were such that it was almost always profitable even without surge. It is a bummer that so much mental calculation has to go into accepting trips at this point. I guess in a perfect world fares would be 30-40% higher yet still be cheaper than a cab thus making surge less frequent... drivers are happy, pax are happy and everyone gets a puppy.... what do I know though, I'm just a lowly X driver


What's your acceptance rate %? Getting a warning for 3 weeks is the usual precursor. Would be nice to hear on longer term violators.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Agreed. But firing while giving no reason is one thing. Firing using non-acceptance of pings as the reason is another. Do you see the difference? In both cases, the driver can legitimately be fired, but Uber admitting that the driver was let go for disobeying their specific requirements regarding ping acceptance could help convince a court that the employee was, indeed, an employee and therefore due expenses incurred during that employment.


Unlikely a driver who gets deactivated needs to get a reason.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Not so my friend. If drivers don't want to accept pings the are to go offline and not to contribute to a negative user experience. *The option to decline is to leave the app off. *


You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> You spin me right round, baby
> Right round like a record, baby
> Right round round round
> 
> ...


You seem to have a proclivity to see some non-existing 'rights for drivers' in the driver agreement. It's only what you agree to do to access their system.

You have no 'rights' other than by compliance.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> You seem to have a proclivity to see some non-existing 'rights for drivers' in the driver agreement. It's only what you agree to do to access their system.
> 
> You have no 'rights' other than by compliance.


I retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services.


----------



## SloanJones (Sep 23, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> What's your acceptance rate %? Getting a warning for 3 weeks is the usual precursor. Would be nice to hear on longer term violators.


I usually hang out in the 75% range


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> You seem to have a proclivity to see some non-existing 'rights for drivers' in the driver agreement. It's only what you agree to do to access their system.
> 
> You have no 'rights' other than by compliance.


This is all about Uber wanting to have its cake and eat it. The lawyers will have heavily advised them to include the clause about drivers being able to turn down requests only in order to make the contract pass for a genuine IC contract. So Uber then tries to hoodwink drivers with the nonsense about non-acceptance making riders unhappy and negative experiences etc.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> This is all about Uber wanting to have its cake and eat it. The lawyers will have heavily advised them to include the clause about drivers being able to turn down requests only in order to make the contract pass for a genuine IC contract. So Uber then tries to hoodwink drivers with the nonsense about non-acceptance making riders unhappy and negative experiences etc.


Uber is abundantly clear in their warning correspondence to drivers on this matter:

"Please *improve your acceptance rate if you want to continue to use the Uber platform*."


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

SloanJones said:


> I usually hang out in the 75% range


And you've been below 80% for how long of a continual period?


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

What the Uber/driver contract says and what the Uber CSRs say, are very, VERY different.

No one is denying what the Uber CSRs say. The point is what they say specifically denies drivers a right retained to the drivers in the contract.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> So many drivers just don't get the fact that Uber's contract is only for Uber.
> 
> They don't give one **** about the drivers. That contract AIN'T in your behalves. If it was you'd have had your own attorney PROTECT YOU in the contract.
> 
> ...


If you look at Post # 41 you will see who it was I quoted and called a jail house lawyer. I wasn't you.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Uber is abundantly clear in their warning correspondence to drivers on this matter:
> 
> "Please *improve your acceptance rate if you want to continue to use the Uber platform*."


Yes, they are. And it's precisely this which may contribute to the unravelling of the IC status of their contract. It'll be interesting to see what the jury decides in San Francisco.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> I retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services.


Tell it to the hand:

"Please *improve your acceptance rate if you want to continue to use the Uber platform*."

Uber seems to be abundantly clear that acceptance ratings below 80% will not be long tolerated.

I'm just looking for a timeline on those below who actually got deactivated if there is anyone who can shed some real light on the subject.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

mike888 said:


> If you look at Post # 41 you will see who it was I quoted and called a jail house lawyer. I wasn't you.


I know. It's mainly Michael and Uberhammer who think they have some kinds of driver rights in the driver agreement. I'd say the only rights are compliance with Uber dictates or else.

Just pointing out the obvious. That the agreement, if violated, sucks for drivers, even if the basis Uber uses sucks major ass.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Yes, they are. And it's precisely this which may contribute to the unravelling of the IC status of their contract. It'll be interesting to see what the jury decides in San Francisco.


Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see a judge stick this one sided driver agreement as far up both companies asses as far as they can shove it. It's only unfortunate that some of these issues may not even be on the legal agenda. I hope we get an inside look at the details when the dust settles.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Tell it to the hand:
> 
> "Please *improve your acceptance rate if you want to continue to use the Uber platform*."
> 
> ...


No one is arguing with you on this point. In fact, it's pretty much agreed unanimously.

This doesn't mean Uber isn't denying drivers a right retained by the drivers in the contract when they do it. Companies violate their contracts. It happens. And a company that willingly violates legislated law is highly likely to violate contract law too.


----------



## ChrisInABQ (Oct 21, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> The point in question (originally) was the gross inequity of driving UberX std. rates with a Select or XL vehicle without the option NOT to do so with Uber (or Lyft for that matter.)
> 
> Would you agree that driving for a loss is not smart? You also understand that it is in Ubers GREAT interests to have their cheap ass Xstd fares hauled around in high dollar vehicles by ANY driver stupid enough to do so?


Would absolutely agree that driving for a loss is not what I consider smart. The problem with that is that profit and loss has proven to be subjective, as a loss to some (those considering ALL the cost of driving) is a profit to others (those looking only at gas and maybe some oil changes). I think you and I could agree that the latter would fall into the "not smart" category simply for poor business sense, but they may be looking for a short-term fix to a long-term problem and going for the low-hanging fruit in the here and now.

If I still drove a Tahoe LTZ, I would not...could not...drove for X. My options in a city like this would be to look for some other way to bring in extra cash, because even at $1.30/mile, I find it hard to believe that there's profit in driving UberX with that type of SUV.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> No one is arguing with you on this point. In fact, it's pretty much agreed unanimously.
> 
> This doesn't mean Uber isn't denying drivers a right retained by the drivers in the contract when they do it. Companies violate their contracts. It happens. And a company that willingly violates legislated law is highly likely to violate contract law too.


These issues get particularly dicey when they use double speak, as you pointed out that the driver maintains the right to not accept a ping, but in the same breath Uber retains the right to terminate without cause or, if a driver refuses to take pings rather than turning the app off to 'refuse.'

It's all legalspeak to have it both ways, both ways being only in favor of Uber.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisInABQ said:


> Would absolutely agree that driving for a loss is not what I consider smart. The problem with that is that profit and loss has proven to be subjective, as a loss to some (those considering ALL the cost of driving) is a profit to others (those looking only at gas and maybe some oil changes). I think you and I could agree that the latter would fall into the "not smart" category simply for poor business sense, but they may be looking for a short-term fix to a long-term problem and going for the low-hanging fruit in the here and now.
> 
> If I still drove a Tahoe LTZ, I would not...could not...drove for X. My options in a city like this would be to look for some other way to bring in extra cash, because *even at $1.30/mile, I find it hard to believe that there's profit in driving UberX with that type of SUV*.


True. I don't care how good a number cruncher the driver is, if an SUV/XL driver thinks they are making money at 90 cents a mile they are lying. It doesn't even work on paper. It can easily be shown to be a quantifiable loss for the only real purposes of determining profit or loss, ON A TAX FORM.

The injustice that transpires with Uber and XL/Select drivers is when they FORCE such to take std. X fares at a quantifiable loss at the risk of deactivation if not doing so.

That is just a simple UNPUNISHED crime on their part.


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

Play whatever games you want, but ultimately every ping you don't accept is now going to someone even further away, costing them more overhead, in my book that makes the op a dick.


----------



## chitownXdriver (Dec 24, 2014)

This is the one I received today, doesn't say anything about having to improve my rate if I want to continue driving on the uber platform but notice the sample pic they sent with the 1.5 surcharge of the 4.8 rated passenger 2 minutes away, they don't seem to understand that those aren't the rides us drivers don't accept.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

chitownXdriver said:


> This is the one I received today, doesn't say anything about having to improve my rate if I want to continue driving on the uber platform but notice the sample pic they sent with the 1.5 surcharge of the 4.8 rated passenger 2 minutes away, they don't seem to understand that those aren't the rides us drivers don't accept.


Yeah, I'd like to see them send out a real non-accepted ping pic. I had one from 60plus miles away. Another 40plus miles away the same night. Both went against my acceptance rate.

Really Uber? Really? If I were on guarantees those 2 ****ed up distance pings would have cost me accepting 40 pings just to stay @90% acceptance.

Let's just all be honest and say that it is remotely possible that UBER might be using this long distance ping scam *to **** drivers out of guarantees?*


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

BlkGeep said:


> Play whatever games you want, but ultimately every ping you don't accept is now going to someone even further away, costing them more overhead, in my book that makes the op a dick.


It's likely that the OP was just one person in a chain of drivers all passing on, in turn, the "hot potato". I've passed on long range pickups from way across town, and then immediately turned on the rider app and seen 5 - 10 other, closer, drivers who must have passed it on before it got to me.


----------



## SeattleUber (Aug 30, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> True. I don't care how good a number cruncher the driver is, if an SUV/XL driver thinks they are making money at 90 cents a mile they are lying. It doesn't even work on paper. It can easily be shown to be a quantifiable loss for the only real purposes of determining profit or loss, ON A TAX FORM.
> 
> The injustice that transpires with Uber and XL/Select drivers is when they FORCE such to take std. X fares at a quantifiable loss at the risk of deactivation if not doing so.
> 
> That is just a simple UNPUNISHED crime on their part.


I FULLY agree and am currently getting the Seattle shaft with my new XL...was told i could run two accounts, X and XL along with XL only. Get approved and the story changes...managers say NOOOOO after 20 emails. Seattle wont allow new Black/SUV and there is no select so XL w SOME X surge was the only way to make this work. Well i have seen 18 of first 20 rides be X...its brutal so my only recourse is Lyft or start to lower my acceptance. Guess i see why so few XL cars on Seattle streets vs HUGE amounts of black SUV taking all XL and higher $ rides...glad i have a real job during day but my plan of extra $ is quickly turning into an UberTurd


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

SeattleUber said:


> I FULLY agree and am currently getting the Seattle shaft with my new XL...was told i could run two accounts, X and XL along with XL only. Get approved and the story changes...managers say NOOOOO after 20 emails. Seattle wont allow new Black/SUV and there is no select so XL w SOME X surge was the only way to make this work. Well i have seen 18 of first 20 rides be X...its brutal so my only recourse is Lyft or start to lower my acceptance. Guess i see why so few XL cars on Seattle streets vs HUGE amounts of black SUV taking all XL and higher $ rides...glad i have a real job during day but my plan of extra $ is quickly turning into an UberTurd





SeattleUber said:


> I FULLY agree and am currently getting the Seattle shaft with my new XL...was told i could run two accounts, X and XL along with XL only. Get approved and the story changes...managers say NOOOOO after 20 emails. Seattle wont allow new Black/SUV and there is no select so XL w SOME X surge was the only way to make this work. Well i have seen 18 of first 20 rides be X...its brutal so my only recourse is Lyft or start to lower my acceptance. Guess i see why so few XL cars on Seattle streets vs HUGE amounts of black SUV taking all XL and higher $ rides...glad i have a real job during day but my plan of extra $ is quickly turning into an UberTurd


Did you make an investment in an XL vehicle specifically to do XL trips based on what you were told before signing up? If so, then Uber has a case to answer.

There was a driver on here who sold his vehicle to lease a Santander vehicle after he was signed up by Uber. Then Uber told him that he was ineligible to drive because they'd uncovered driving citations on his driving record. So he's left with no vehicle of his own, a Santander lease vehicle he can't drive, and no way of earning money to pay for it. Apparently at first Uber said tough shit, then recanted when he threatened to go to the media with his story. What happened next is a bit of a mystery as Uber made him sign a non disclosure agreement and made the problem go away. The driver did say though that he'd been compensated to his satisfaction for being Ubered by Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Any attorney who would set foot in small claims court is a dumb ass.


Any attorney who ignores a demand to appear from a small claims court is a dumb-ass - as is anyone who suggests they ignore an order to appear in small claims court. THAT is the power of small claims court.



> Your choice is only to keep doing what you are doing. Comply. Or sue.


My doing what I am doing IS complying. Uber hasn't told me that I have to do anything differently than I am doing...
they are just using their 'scare tactics' to 'encourage' drivers to accept all ride requests.
For Uber to require me (or any driver) to accept all ride requests would be for them to exert the control of an employer.
That's the LAST thing Uber is going to do right now.

How is it that you don't understand these things?



> ... let us know how it works out for you.


I will, of course.
As will others who are doing exactly what I am doing: *driving for profitability*.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Mike78 said:


> I recieved last 2 weeks this one: *[UBER] M, it looks like you're accepting less than 80% of trip requests. Please sign offline when you are not in a position to accept requests. Accepting at least 80% of trips will help you earn more money, keep the Uber system working smoothly, and ensure you can continue to use the Uber platform. Thanks! *Then I asked them, what's going on?? Because a accepted all requests, only thing is, when sometime I'm accepting requests it shows "Error" and automatically turns off and program may calculated like I did not accept.. But it's not my fault if it shows "error"...... They answered , like it happens sometime and if I really accepted all that'll be OK. .. I recieved summary for last week and it shows my acceptance rate 68%, but I accepted all.


yeah, the app and network do brain farts on occasion. It's another reason Uber will not deactivate a driver for only issues with their acceptance rate unless they think you're trying to game the system for some reason.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

moni4nuttin said:


> I was placed on probation on Monday. *I just simply sent them an email the next day requesting to be deactivated* pure and simple.


Wait...
So you were deactivated because *you requested deactivation* -
not because they were harping at you over your acceptance rate?


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber CSR replies:
> 
> _Hi Michael,
> Thanks for reaching out, and happy to explain.
> ...


^^^
Do you actually think that "Keesha" has any idea of what you're talking about.... or even care? 
Her first comment to you was a "Shift-F6" that was kicked out to you, and her admonishment to you was a plain F-10. 
It's just the battle between the Morelocks and the Eloi.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> "Additionally, *you acknowledge that your repeated failure to accept User requests* for Transportation Services *while you are logged in to the Driver App creates a negative experience for Users *of Uber's mobile application. *If you do not wish to accept User requests for Transportation Services for a period of time, you will log off of the Driver App."*


Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement. And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.

That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.

I know you don't like legal stuff and in your opinion it is meaningless, but it's not.
The contract clause(s) which make drivers Independent Contractors and give partners the right to accept the rides they want to accept, makes the scare sentences you've quoted utterly meaningless. Unless you are just leaving the app on and not accepting ride-request after ride-request, (tying up the system) then you are in compliance with the agreement.

In MY case (and I'm only speaking about me here), I am being discriminate in my accepting ride-requests - but I am not abusing the system.

Want a defense?
_Hey Uber, what's the purpose of 
SHOWING THE DRIVER A RIDER'S RATING *BEFORE* THEY ACCEPT A RIDE-REQUEST 
if the driver is not given the discretion to decline to accept a poorly rated rider?_​
Judgement for the plaintiff.
Case closed.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Do you actually think that "Keesha" has any idea of what you're talking about.... or even care? Her first comment to you was a "Shift-F6" that was kicked out to you, and her admonishment to you was a plain F-10.


Agreed - but read my reply about documentation.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

mike888 said:


> You're the one who sounds like a jail house lawyer.


Nothing wrong with being a jail house lawyer if you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> The point is what they say specifically denies drivers a right retained to the drivers in the contract.


And just as importantly, IMPLIES that a driver is violating the terms of the agreement and is in danger of being deactivated.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

BlkGeep said:


> Play whatever games you want, but ultimately every ping you don't accept is now going to someone even further away, costing them more overhead, in my book that makes the op a dick.


Yeah - because that driver doesn't have the same right to not accept the ping if they choose not to?
Get real. No one is driving to make decisions based on how it effects other "Independent Contractors".
In that sense, drivers are COMPETITORS.

Hey, wait a minute...
I seem to recall that you support the idea of staying offline until a surge kicks in...
isn't THAT also passing off ride requests to drivers who are further away?
Maybe that was someone else... but I sure didn't hear you suggesting that practice was 'unfair' to other drivers.

And I do not consider it a 'game' to play by the rules I was given - and being discriminative about accepting ride-requests is absolutely not any kind of 'scheme' (the like of which we see posted here on a daily basis).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Just up them to district court and MAKE THEM PAY OUT THE ASS for their bullshit claims in attorney fees.
> *Guess what? ALL bullshit claims disappear when the claimants have to open their wallet to PLAY.*


I agree...
but what we're discussing here isn't a BS claim, now is it?
Or are you suggesting that Uber DOES have the legal right to deactivate a driver solely on the basis of their 'acceptance rate'?


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Agreed - but read my reply about documentation.


^^^
Oh, yeah, no problem there.... but the thing that set me off about the messages from the CSR is just the thought of some whiny little petulant 20 year old who just got her first job sitting there and telling a guy who has his money involved in trying to make a living out of driving and having his messages coming back to him in the form of sheer bullshit from somebody who is no more understanding than talking to a block wall. 
It's just infuriating. 
It pisses me off.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Oh, yeah, no problem there.... but the thing that set me off about the messages from the CSR is just the thought of some whiny little petulant 20 year old who just got her first job sitting there and telling a guy who has his money involved in trying to make a living out of driving and having his messages coming back to him in the form of sheer bullshit from somebody who is no more understanding than talking to a block wall.
> It's just infuriating.
> It pisses me off.


Me too... but try to remember they are just trying to make a living, too.
That's their job.
They don't make policy.
They follow orders and are not empowered to do anything outside those policies.

I've stopped yelling at CSRs unless they go off the reservation and start giving me a hard time.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Me too... but try to remember they are just trying to make a living, too.
> That's their job.
> They don't make policy.
> They follow orders and are not empowered to do anything outside those policies.
> ...


^^^
Yes, but.
I think that somewhere in the interview process, the CSR's that make the grade are those that actually like to be confrontational and are particularly self-centered.... not to mention ignorant of the human condition. 
Hah!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Yes, but.
> I think that somewhere in the interview process, the CSR's that make the grade are those that actually like to be confrontational and are particularly self-centered.... not to mention ignorant of the human condition.
> Hah!


Seems that way at times - but in my market, I've had some really great CSRs - and they are always happy to research something about a ride if I ask them too, and have been pretty clear with me on what they can and cannot do. For the most part, I really like our Uber CSRs. Lyft could take some lessons from Uber on customer service training. I like Lyft's executive management team - but in my experience, their customer service systems are appalling.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I agree...
> but what we're discussing here isn't a BS claim, now is it?
> Or are you suggesting that Uber DOES have the legal right to deactivate a driver solely on the basis of their 'acceptance rate'?


Our driver agreements can be cancelled without cause.

Ask me how important cause is when 'no cause' is the standard?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
> When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement. And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.
> 
> That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.
> ...


Judgment for the plaintiff? You've been watching too many Judge Judy shows.

There is no doubt that drivers who fall below an 80% acceptance rate get threats for deactivation, primarily on the driver agreement terms of creating a negative pax/user experience. We don't hear too many accounts of deactivation.

Maybe you can be a first poster test case? Let us know when Judge Judy hands over the booty.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Wait...
> So you were deactivated because *you requested deactivation* -
> not because they were harping at you over your acceptance rate?


I didn't question the poster on what I think was probation, supposedly meaning the driver had to get the acceptance rate up in a certain period of time or begone.

Driver chose begone. It's not a tenable driver situation, just as it is for us.

I'd expect you or any other driver with low acceptance rates, regardless of what the driver thinks, will experience a similar track with Uber.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> yeah, the app and network do brain farts on occasion. It's another reason Uber will not deactivate a driver for only issues with their acceptance rate unless they think you're trying to game the system for some reason.


Let us know if/when you hit the probation warning level.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup... but your reading more into those two, VERY CAREFULLY worded sentences than is there.
> When I do not accept an UberX ping, I am still willing to accept both an UberX ride-request that is profitable to me - AND I am willing to accept ANY UberSELECT ride request I receive. The language they used is not only ambiguous, it is also in contradiction to rights already established in the agreement.


I wouldn't go so far as to say it contradicts. I can agree with Uber that my failure to accept requests does create a negative user experience while also retaining my option to accept, decline or ignore requests, without creating a contradiction. Agreeing with Uber regarding the result does not create an obligation to surrender the options I retain in the contract in order to avoid creating a negative user experience.



> And, in legal principle, when there is ambiguity in a legal agreement, the finding always goes to the party that did NOT draft the agreement.


Correct! If in fact, the "failure" clause did create an obligation that contradicts the options the driver retains, then it is an ambiguous contract, and a suit regarding the contract would go in favor of the party that did not write it.



> That language is MEANINGLESS. It is meant to frighten drivers into accepting all ride-requests.


That's not the only place where meaningless language is used in the contract. Another example is where it says the driver always has the right to charge less than the pre-arranged fare. This is meaningless language because it's not establishing anything that isn't already established. Given Uber can do nothing more than make a recommendation for a fare for the service the driver provides the rider, the driver and rider own all rights to negotiate the rate. They can negotiate a lower rate, the same rate, or a higher rate. All are rights the driver and rider own. So Uber's lawyers, by stating the driver always has the right to charge less is doing nothing more than acknowledging a limited scope of the rights the driver and riders have... to negotiate a lower rate. By only acknowledging a limited scope of the their rights, the lawyers are trying to make it look like drivers and riders don't have the right to negotiate a higher rate. Of course they do. It's NOT the Uber/driver contract that establishes that right. WIth the rider NOT being a party of the Uber/driver contract, the Uber/driver contract can't establish nor limit rights of the rider. This is why Uber states their rate is nothing more than a recommendation. Uber can't do anything more than make a recommendation between the driver and the rider. If the driver and rider don't have a contract between themselves, then the relationship is bound by legislative law. The Uber/driver contract does not trump legislative law in regards to parties NOT part of the contract.



> I know you don't like legal stuff and in your opinion it is meaningless, but it's not.
> The contract clause(s) which make drivers Independent Contractors and give partners the right to accept the rides they want to accept, makes the scare sentences you've quoted utterly meaningless. Unless you are just leaving the app on and not accepting ride-request after ride-request, (typing up the system) then you are in compliance with the agreement.
> 
> In MY case (and I'm only speaking about me here), I am being discriminative in my accepting ride-requests - but I am not abusing the system.
> ...


As long as there is absolutely no other reason than the acceptance rate issue, then yes the plaintiff wins this argument. But given Uber has the right to deactivate a driver for any reason, as long as it is reasonable (which is incredibly ambiguous), then all Uber needs is one reason outside of the acceptance rate issue to have contractual merit for deactivation.

This is why I don't think lawsuit's of wrongful termination are good ideas. Uber has the advantage in pretty much all of them, unless the driver is perfect, which none of them are.

A lawsuit of breach of contract is the correct route here, as Uber's operation fails to match it's contractual requirements and violates the rights retained by the drivers. Essentially Uber is treating the drivers like they are employees by violating their rights as Independent Contractors. Hence why the lawyers are attacking how Uber is treating active drivers, and not looking for justice regarding the wrongfully deactivated ones.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> As long as there is absolutely no other reason than the acceptance rate issue, then yes the plaintiff wins this argument. *But given Uber has the right to deactivate a driver for any reason*, as long as it is reasonable (which is incredibly ambiguous), then all Uber needs is one reason outside of the acceptance rate issue to have contractual merit for deactivation.


Actually they don't even need one reason. It can, in every case, be termination without cause. (any reason)

As to the drivers and pax rates, most state laws mandate* the pax KNOW, in advance of the fare, the price and terms of the fare,* which the driver is not even involved with til after the fact. So there are other laws that play into this matter which functionally eliminate the driver from being involved at the legal point of PRE ORDERING.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Usually in any T/A. be that uber or some service agreement, "we preserve the right to.....without notification... pretty much sums it up.. It might as well read "We have the right to screw you left and right and side to side" I'd have more respect for that wording. It's far less hypocritical.,


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Actually they don't even need one reason. It can, in every case, be termination without cause. (any reason)
> 
> As to the drivers and pax rates, most state laws mandate* the pax KNOW, in advance of the fare, the price and terms of the fare,* which the driver is not even involved with til after the fact. So there are other laws that play into this matter which functionally eliminate the driver from being involved at the legal point of PRE ORDERING.


Correct. And in some situations, local and/or state laws establish a minimum fare, of which Uber is causing drivers and riders to violate by processing a rate lower than what the law requires. That's just another example of how little Uber can legally do regarding the rate, but is doing anyway. Uber doesn't give a shit about law, both legislated law and contract law. It does what it damn well pleases even if it violates those laws.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Correct. And in some situations, local and/or state laws establish a minimum fare, of which Uber is causing drivers and riders to violate by processing a rate lower than what the law requires. That's just another example of how little Uber can legally do regarding the rate, but is doing anyway. Uber doesn't give a shit about law, both legislated law and contract law. It does what it damn well pleases even if it violates those laws.


True. In a true market environment, the drivers themselves should be able to set their own fares with the pax in the pre fare contact. Sidecar for example (I heard) already does this by allowing a driver to set the fare by surge multiples from their minimum fare (which should also have a state mandated MINIMUM.) They also allow drivers to set radius filters for extra fare minimums for travel distances. Problem solved.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Lidman said:


> Usually in any T/A. be that uber or some service agreement, "we preserve the right to.....without notification... pretty much sums it up.. It might as well read "We have the right to screw you left and right and side to side" I'd have more respect for that wording. It's far less hypocritical.,


I respect the fancy legal footwork Uber employs in their driver agreement, having it all ways, theirs.

Used it myself in contracts. Yes, you have a choice, A, B or C. We both agree that the default choice is A. If you want choice B or C the price is too exorbitant to even consider. So you sign OFF by your non choice of B or C, thereby A is the only choice, in reality.

The illusion of choice is commonly employed in contracts.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nothing wrong with being a jail house lawyer if you know what you're talking about.


Exactly my point.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

I know I don't want to drive over 15 minutes for what may be a $4 fare. That pays $2.80 and can eat 45 minutes or more of my time. I wouldn't mind drivng over 15 minutes if I was compensated. PAX should be told no Uber cars are available and asked if they want to pay more to have one come from farther away. I'm sick of accepting pings from 7 minutes away only to have it change to over 20 once I accept. I have to admit I have been cancelling when I see the ETA's get ridiculous.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> I'd expect you or any other driver with low acceptance rates, regardless of what the driver thinks, will experience a similar track with Uber.


Yup - we'll see.
I'm doing good, profitable driving right now (although too many hours to do it).
I do not intend to change my acceptance practice to include unprofitable rides.
So far, all I've received are the standard 'we're concerned' and 'tips to improve acceptance rate' notices from Uber.
If I get a 'warning' of some kind, I'll start showing up at my markets local office hours and get to know the folks there - and get them to know me. That way, with a little luck, if I ever do get deactivated, I'll have real people (the kind with names and faces) that I can talk to about it who will be familiar with the situation.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup - we'll see.
> I'm doing good, profitable driving right now (although too many hours to do it).
> I do not intend to change my acceptance practice to include unprofitable rides.
> So far, all I've received are the standard 'we're concerned' and 'tips to improve acceptance rate' notices from Uber.
> If I get a 'warning' of some kind, I'll start showing up at my markets local office hours and get to know the folks there - and get them to know me. That way, with a little luck, if I ever do get deactivated, I'll have real people (the kind with names and faces) that I can talk to about it who will be familiar with the situation.


Puker up dem manager butt kissing lips. heh heh


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I know I don't want to drive over 15 minutes for what may be a $4 fare. That pays $2.80 and can eat 45 minutes or more of my time. I wouldn't mind drivng over 15 minutes if I was compensated. PAX should be told no Uber cars are available and asked if they want to pay more to have one come from farther away. I'm sick of accepting pings from 7 minutes away only to have it change to over 20 once I accept. I have to admit I have been cancelling when I see the ETA's get ridiculous.


Yes - and it happens all the time in our market, Tim.

What I find remarkable is that I'll be in someplace like southwest Lakewood and get a ping from Ohio City, E 9th or out by CSU. That's crazy. How can there be no drivers downtown to get those pings?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

What irritates the living hell out of me is getting long distance pinged out of surge. God, what is wrong with these people?! A 10 mile away ping while I'm sitting in a 3.5x surge in a high traffic area and can't keep up with the requests and you think I'm going to leave that and to go fetch some a'hole 10 miles away in a non-surge zone for a possible min. fare? 

Seriously? 

Seriously?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> ...I don't think lawsuit's of wrongful termination are good ideas.


I agree.
And I don't think small claims court is the place to bring a wrongful termination complaint. And I wouldn't bring a wrongful termination suit in small claims court. That kind of complaint is best left to lawyers to handle.

Small claims courts will generally only hear matters that have a monetary value that can be established and proved, and that value has a limit (usually between $3,000 and $6,000. Anything over that must be filed in muni court.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> ... most state laws mandate* the pax KNOW, in advance of the fare, the price and terms of the fare...*


Those are car-for-hire regulations and [Uber claims] they do not apply to Ride-Share.
Please post links to those laws in "most states".
(or are you just making a generalized sweeping assumption?)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> There is no doubt that drivers who fall below an 80% acceptance rate get threats for deactivation.


No doubt?
Please don't tell me what MY actual experience is.
Since my first week driving ride-share, having figured out the whole 'profitable vs unprofitable' ride acceptance thing, I have never had an acceptance rate of 80% or higher. While I receive notices 'encouraging' me to accept all rides, and lists of tips of how to 'improve' my acceptance rate. I have (so far) never been threatened with deactivation.

So much for "no doubt".

I'm not saying that I will never be deactivated for my acceptance rate...
just saying it hasn't happened yet - and I have never been 'threatened' with deactivation over my acceptance rate.

From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense that Uber and Lyft would do everything they can to get drivers to accept all ride-requests - including 'implying' a threat of deactivation.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Those are car-for-hire regulations and [Uber claims] they do not apply to Ride-Share.
> Please post links to those laws in "most states".
> (or are you just making a generalized sweeping assumption?)


No, they aren't. I've read TNC legislation in Seattle, Co, and Penn and they all have a very strict guideline that the pax MUST by law be informed of the fare setups PRIOR to ordering.

You might be behind the curve there in Ohio, but I doubt it. Do you have TNC legislation?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No doubt?
> Please don't tell me what MY actual experience is.
> Since my first week driving ride-share, having figured out the whole 'profitable vs unprofitable' ride acceptance thing, I have never had an acceptance rate of 80% or higher. While I receive notices 'encouraging' me to accept all rides, and lists of tips of how to 'improve' my acceptance rate. I have (so far) never been threatened with deactivation.
> 
> So much for "no doubt".


It worked for me for quite awhile too. But about 3 or 4 weeks after the last rate cut I started getting the texts about low acceptance rates. Prior to early Jan. it wasn't an issue. I was only taking XL and surge X pings and disregarding anything else that happened to hit the app, but I was selective about where I did it to cut down on it happening. Still, when you're only taking 2-4 fares it only takes 1 or 2 passed pings to toss yer acceptance salad.



> I'm not saying that I will never be deactivated for my acceptance rate...
> just saying it hasn't happened yet - *and I have never been 'threatened' with deactivation over my acceptance rate.*
> 
> From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense that Uber and Lyft would do everything they can to get drivers to accept all ride-requests - including 'implying' a threat of deactivation.


But you have been 'notified' and that is only the first step / barrage. Problem is Uber Central is probably not letting the local managers cut as much slack as prior because they are forcing the issues with guarantees to keep all their drivers on board with Uber only. You might get to be an innocent bystander to Uber corporate dictates. My texts came from San Fran. I'm pretty sure the local managers have to answer to them for letting you slack off.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> No, they aren't. I've read TNC legislation in Seattle, Co, and Penn and they all have a very strict guideline that the pax MUST by law be informed of the fare setups PRIOR to ordering.
> 
> You might be behind the curve there in Ohio, but I doubt it. Do you have TNC legislation?


No we don't have TNC legislation.
We don't have much regulation here of anything. (just kidding)

But I'd still like to see the TNC applicable legislation you referred to that exists for 'most states' (can I assume 'most' means more than 50?)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Puker up dem manager butt kissing lips. heh heh


hehe...
fortunately it ain't like that.
These 'managers' are kids (to me), all in their 20's and 30's.
They are not the least bit intimidating and they all want to do a good job.
They've got their laptops with them and can very quickly look up data about everything from specific rides to past communications.
So far, my interactions have been very positive.

And I clean up pretty nicely.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No we don't have TNC legislation.
> We don't have much regulation here of anything. (just kidding)
> 
> But I'd still like to see the TNC applicable legislation you referred to that exists for 'most states' (can I assume 'most' means more than 50?)


In states that have TNC rulz. Maybe you're still running illegal there in oHI?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> What irritates the living hell out of me is getting long distance pinged out of surge. God, what is wrong with these people?! A 10 mile away ping while I'm sitting in a 3.5x surge in a high traffic area and can't keep up with the requests and you think I'm going to leave that and to go fetch some a'hole 10 miles away in a non-surge zone for a possible min. fare? Seriously? Seriously?


hehe...
It seems like wherever I'm sitting waiting for a ping, a surge pops-up 5 miles to my east... or five miles to my west.
I never 'chase' a surge. They don't last long enough here to be able to get to them.

As Steve Miller said: [edit: STEALERS WHEEL... not Steve Miller)

_Surge to the right of me, 
Surge to the left and here I am
Stuck in the middle with you_​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> In states that have TNC rulz. Maybe you're still running illegal there in oHI?


Hell if I know.
I work downtown a lot, where cops are always around.

(I've been amazed at how they seem to know ride-share driver's cars and do not hassle us about our U-Turns, backing into one-way streets, blocking traffic while waiting for the pax and other stupid driving tricks in downtown streets while they don't hesitate to nail a 'normal driver' for such things.)

I assume if they had a problem with ride-share drivers here, they'd let us know about it. <shrug>
I guess they're leaving all that to the politicians.


----------



## 3MATX (Oct 6, 2014)

I got one of these emails. I laughed my ass off hahaha


----------



## John Anderson (Jan 12, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They can't (legally) deactivate me over acceptance rate issues.
> Doesn't mean they won't, but they'd have to find another reason.
> The partner agreement specifically provides the partner/driver the right to accept ONLY the rides requests they choose.


Legal? Nothing they do is legal until or unless they convince/pay/bribe legislators to make laws and convince/pay/bribe governors to sign them.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

John Anderson said:


> Legal? Nothing they do is legal until or unless they convince/pay/bribe legislators to make laws and convince/pay/bribe governors to sign them.


Michael is under the impression that he has rights and the second delusion, that Uber gives a shit.


----------



## John Anderson (Jan 12, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Michael is under the impression that he has rights and the second delusion, that Uber gives a shit.


Americans lost all rights about ten years ago. No privacy, no pay, no labor rights, nothing.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

After the first few comments I just gave up reading... Dude is saying they can't legally deactivate him lol... Dude they legally can't be in your city operating either. You legally can't be driving for them. 


Funny how things work.


----------



## flyingdingo (Feb 5, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Those all work great until they don't. Then you'll have to beg for your job back with promises of service to all std. xer's.


It's not a job if _you_ are paying _them_ to do it.


----------



## flyingdingo (Feb 5, 2015)

Casandria said:


> @Michael - Cleveland There are a LOT of things that Uber can't legally do that they do anyway. Just sayin...


Exactly! But what Uber has done is to publicize to other players that there is money to be made and respect to be earned for ethically inclined people.


----------



## flyingdingo (Feb 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber CSR replies:
> 
> _Hi Michael,
> Thanks for reaching out, and happy to explain.
> ...


Michael, you're my ****ing hero. This company could be so much better if they would invite us in. They're arrogant assholes.


----------



## flyingdingo (Feb 5, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Has anyone reading this
> ever been deactivated
> for having a low acceptance rate
> (while still doing 100 highly rated rides a week?*


Low acceptance rate? No.

High cancellation rate? Yes.


----------



## JohninTampa (Mar 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They can't (legally) deactivate me over acceptance rate issues.
> Doesn't mean they won't, but they'd have to find another reason.
> The partner agreement specifically provides the partner/driver the right to accept ONLY the rides requests they choose.


"Legally"? Are you kidding me?
I'm not being sarcastic, I am new, but the videos I saw stated that I (should) accept at least 80% of the requests. Also, I agree, they need not give you any reason to deactivate you. Even if they did, you would not (legally) have a leg to stand on. My opinions, certainly, I do not pretend to be an expert.,
I can agree thT I would not wish to drive 10, 15, 20 minutes to a pick up.
Also, I was told that since I have an XL capable vehicle, they would create a second option (vehicle to choose) with my tag number and XL at the end. They have not and will only agree that I CAN accept XL rides
The message stated that, if I selected the vehicle that had the XL at the end, I would only get XL requests and they were 30% higher (estimated) interesting that they won't allow it for me because, as a rider, I have selected XL several times and it says non available


----------



## flyingdingo (Feb 5, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Michael is under the impression that he has rights and the second delusion, that Uber gives a shit.


Uber does not give a shit. We are numbers. They are manipulating numbers.


----------



## John Anderson (Jan 12, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> After the first few comments I just gave up reading... Dude is saying they can't legally deactivate him lol... Dude they legally can't be in your city operating either. You legally can't be driving for them.
> 
> Funny how things work.


I wonder if disgruntled Mafiosi take their "employers" to court.

Organized crime is organized crime.

#taximafia


----------



## John Anderson (Jan 12, 2015)

JohninTampa said:


> "Legally"? Are you kidding me?
> I'm not being sarcastic, I am new, but the videos I saw stated that I (should) accept at least 80% of the requests. Also, I agree, they need not give you any reason to deactivate you. Even if they did, you would not (legally) have a leg to stand on. My opinions, certainly, I do not pretend to be an expert.,
> I can agree thT I would not wish to drive 10, 15, 20 minutes to a pick up.
> Also, I was told that since I have an XL capable vehicle, they would create a second option (vehicle to choose) with my tag number and XL at the end. They have not and will only agree that I CAN accept XL rides
> The message stated that, if I selected the vehicle that had the XL at the end, I would only get XL requests and they were 30% higher (estimated) interesting that they won't allow it for me because, as a rider, I have selected XL several times and it says non available


Hey, other john,

I think you're just the smartest dog in the pack.


----------



## waker81 (Dec 15, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland hopefully you opted out on arbitration - otherwise your only dispute course is Arbitration as defined in 15.3 of the Partner Agreement


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

I don't know what could be worse, the UBER Partner Agreement, or Dr Sheldon Cooper's roommate agreement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

waker81 said:


> Michael - Cleveland hopefully you opted out on arbitration - otherwise your only dispute course is Arbitration as defined in 15.3 of the Partner Agreement


As I've posted in ADVICE and others sections here, opting out of the arbitration clause is one of the first things new driver's should do. (Even though I seriously doubt any court would uphold the time limit in the agreement for opting out within 30 days - or whatever it is - because while you can put anything you want in an agreement, just because it's there doesn't mean a court will find it to be legal or reasonable).


----------



## 300 (Mar 20, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Disagree. It seems you do - neither "failure to accept" or "breach" can be seen anywhere in your quoted text from the contract.
> 
> Please post an extract from the contract that states that a driver can be deactivated for refusing trip requests.


Uber drivers are "independent contractors". Just like the pool boy or landscaper. If you don't like the way they work. You fire them and get another one tomorrow. Simple as that. You are not employees with benefits and privileges. You are the pool boy.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

300 said:


> Uber drivers are "independent contractors". Just like the pool boy or landscaper. If you don't like the way they work. You fire them and get another one tomorrow. Simple as that. You are not employees with benefits and privileges. You are the pool boy.


 You don't say.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

300 said:


> Uber drivers are "independent contractors". Just like the pool boy or landscaper. If you don't like the way they work. You fire them and get another one tomorrow. Simple as that. You are not employees with benefits and privileges. You are the pool boy.


It's FAR more complex than that (and certainly not as you have described).

Uber can't 'fire' anyone they don't employ (as either an employee or IC).
Drivers do not 'work for Uber'.

My agreement says that I am engaging Uber for THEIR services rendered - not the other way around.

I PAY Uber for the use of their software, to provide me with ride requests and to act as a third-party payor between my customers and me.
Legally and technically, Uber works for me by providing me with the services I pay them for.

It's all moot, however, because in the agreement I've accepted, it says that either party can terminate the agreement at any time.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Hell if I know.
> I work downtown a lot, where cops are always around.
> 
> (I've been amazed at how they seem to know ride-share driver's cars and do not hassle us about our U-Turns, backing into one-way streets, blocking traffic while waiting for the pax and other stupid driving tricks in downtown streets while they don't hesitate to nail a 'normal driver' for such things.)
> ...


the cops that I talked to even before Houston had a way to be legal said they didn't give a s*** because at least we got drunks off the road. I think in Houston they have bigger fish to fry


----------



## Gogie A Malathu (Oct 14, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber CSR replies:
> 
> _Hi Michael,
> Thanks for reaching out, and happy to explain.
> ...


I totally agree with you.. I signed up with Uber as a part time driver and am software engineer specializing in SQL analytics and reporting. My other motive besides wanting to earn a little extra income was to acquire data on my own driving and mileage patterns to develop functionality and possibly a companion app to Uber and Lyft that would apply an algorithm for determining profitability of rides. Basically what most drivers want to know is their operating cost per mile for going from x -> A to B -> y. where x is the point at which you're dispatched from, A-B is the rider origin/destination and y is the distance traveled from the last dropoff to wherever the driver's personal business takes them. We'll see how it goes... Considering how simple the Uber app is and the resources they now have with all the funding interest I'm sure it's something they would have in the works or implemented if they actually cared about driver profitability. Which is why I think someone needs to develop this independently as a separate app.


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

When I'm dropping off near Universal/Disney I'll start to get pings from the theme parks after.. I ignore every single one and head away from that bullshit.

I've only done one trip from there and it took me nearly 30 minutes to get the pick-up and the fare was $2.40

It's made my acceptance rate plummet I'm sure.. still waiting on the warning email.

If I get cut loose I'll give Lyft a shot.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Gogie A Malathu said:


> I totally agree with you.. I signed up with Uber as a part time driver and am software engineer specializing in SQL analytics and reporting. My other motive besides wanting to earn a little extra income was to acquire data on my own driving and mileage patterns to develop functionality and possibly a companion app to Uber and Lyft that would apply an algorithm for determining profitability of rides. Basically what most drivers want to know is their operating cost per mile for going from x -> A to B -> y. where x is the point at which you're dispatched from, A-B is the rider origin/destination and y is the distance traveled from the last dropoff to wherever the driver's personal business takes them. We'll see how it goes... Considering how simple the Uber app is and the resources they now have with all the funding interest I'm sure it's something they would have in the works or implemented if they actually cared about driver profitability. Which is why I think someone needs to develop this independently as a separate app.


If you decide to build an app, be sure to look in to the APIs Uber makes available to developers. Using their api makes apps a lot more user friendly and easier for devs to program.


----------



## EpicBeard (Oct 11, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> As Steve Miller said:
> 
> _Surge to the right of me,
> Surge to the left and here I am
> Stuck in the middle with you_​


Good comparison, but that's not Steve Miller!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Yeah, you can be real helpful and tell us how long you can pull your low acceptance rate stuff on them without being deactivated.


Well, it's been a year now - and I haven't been deactivated.
Hope you found that helpful.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

EpicBeard said:


> Good comparison, but that's not Steve Miller!


yeah, yeah, yeah... I thought we covered that months ago when I first posted the bad attribution - it's Stealers Wheel.
But THRILLED to see someone reading through the old posts - thanks!


----------



## Buck8269 (Oct 3, 2015)

I don't accept rides over 10 min. I've been doing it for months. No warning from Uber. I really don't give a rats ass if they do give me warning or deactivated me. My acceptance rate is 50-60%. I refuse to travel more than 10min to pick up fare that ends up being minimum fare. Minimum fare for me is 3.20 after Uber take. I lose money doing that. When I started 10 months ago it was worth taking every fare because Uber had guarantee hourly rate if u accepted 90%. Uber doesn't do guarantee rate anymore. So now I accept what I want per agreement. As far as staying online that's my choice not Ubers. I need to stay online so I can do the fares that are profitable for me. Less than 10 min for pickup. Uber created this situation not me.


----------

