# Horrible ruling for Uber



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

"BREAKING: The 9th Cir. has just ruled that the Calif. Supreme Court's 2018 Dynamex decision, which makes it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, applies retroactively. Decision has major implications & could result in a wave of suits vs employers.

California 'Independent Contractor' Test Applies Retroactively
Posted May 2, 2019, 12:44 PM

By Patrick Dorrian

'Legal tradition' is to apply judicial decisions retroactively
Applying ABC test to pending cases serves wage law's goals

International cleaning business franchiser Jan-Pro must defend class claims that it illegally treated California employees as independent contractors under the state's "clarified" standard for determining worker classification, the Ninth Circuit held May 2.

The California Supreme Court's April 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court applies retroactively, not just to new cases, the federal appeals court said in a widely anticipated ruling.

Dynamex held that a three-factor "ABC" test should be used in cases under California wage law. To prove a worker isn't an employee, the company must show the worker has freedom from control over how to perform the services provided, that the services are outside the business's normal variety or workplace, and that the worker is engaged in an independently established role.

Applying Dynamex retroactively is consistent with the state's "legal tradition," Judge Frederic Block said. The state high court also denied without comment a petition in Dynamex asking it to state that the decision was to be applied prospectively only. That's "a data point for us to consider," Block said.

There's also no indication that California state courts are likely to limit Dynamex's holding to new cases, Block said.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Jan-Pro's argument that retroactive application would be unfair to business owners. Limiting application of the ABC test to new cases only would defeat the remedial purposes of California wage law cited by the state supreme court, Block said.

Retroactive application ensures that the workers who sued Jan-Pro can provide for themselves and their families, Block said. It also protects the janitorial industry as a whole "by putting Jan-Pro on equal footing" with other businesses, and shields California from the burdens of having to support citizens who are paid "substandard wages," he said.

A lower courthad dismissed the claims against Jan-Pro by Gerardo Vazquez and other similarly situated workers. It must now reexamine the case under the ABC test, Block said. In doing so, it may ask whether "unit franchisees" in Jan-Pro's two-tiered franchise system are necessary to its business model, whether such units work continuously for Jan-Pro, and if Jan-Pro holds itself out as a cleaning business, he said.

The First Circuit's 2017 ruling in a related case didn't decide the claims of the workers here, the Ninth Circuit said, rejecting an alternate argument by Jan-Pro.

Judges Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon joined the opinion.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. represents the class. O'Hagan Meyer PLLC represents Jan-Pro.

The case is Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l Inc., 9th Cir., No. 17-16096, 5/2/19.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily...pendent-contractor-test-applies-retroactively


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty. 
You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
That's what I want and it's working.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

No Prisoners said:


> what I'm aiming for is delusion
> 
> of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


*You're winning at delusion. *


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


I do not want to hurt Uber. I do want them to go back to old rates though.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

You mi first shift balance of power if you want change. Otherwise after IPO uber's just dropping rates much lower. That's coming unless you act now. Later it's too late. Take the power away then you have leverage.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

No Prisoners said:


> You mi first shift balance of power if you want change. Otherwise after IPO uber's just dropping rates much lower. That's coming unless you act now. Later it's too late. Take the power away then you have leverage.


I'll just find another job. Uber is not my life line, I am sorry if it is for you. I don't mean that sarcastically, just that Uber is a crappy company and if you married to them, it's just going to get worse as time goes on.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


Think PUTS.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> I'll just find another job. Uber is not my life line, I am sorry if it is for you. I don't mean that sarcastically, just that Uber is a crappy company and if you married to them, it's just going to get worse as time goes on.


Thank you and appreciate your comments. However, uber does not mean anything for me financially at all. I'm retired banker and got involved with group of retired colleagues for fun. Nevertheless, we learned the system and eventually discovered how flawed it is. There's a better way but first must deal with Uber. 
Anyhow, for now we're concentrating on shifting power to drivers who made the company and are being destroyed by it. 
For every point stock drops valuation losses $180 million. 
We'll have major impact and drivers will ultimately gain.



1.5xorbust said:


> Think PUTS.


You and I at different levels. Don't care about Shorting to gain from it. There's a much higher purpose and much more to gain including millions of lives. Our capitalization comes from changing the system.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I’m so glad that 99% of the Uber drivers won’t put in 12 hour days (or 70+ hour weeks)

Only a tiny portion of them are going to continue in any meaningful way once this charade collapses.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

No Prisoners said:


> There's a better way but first must deal with Uber.


Do tell?


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> Do tell?


Wish I could. Partners in Seattle this week negotiating architecture. Trying to rush for press releases IPO date. 
If it works out on time I will give this forum first look at it.

All my threads and post are followed by "show ignored content" box. Evidently someone I've designated "ignored" has such an interest on me that has the need to ghost me. Poor miserable life these persons must live. Wonder how their own mothers feel about them now. Bet they regret no abortion. Imagine having that kind of scum as a child. Most likely they're living in their cars or trailer homes. 
Forgive them Lord as they don't know better.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Mental illness is scary


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> Do tell?


The shortest version is he claims he invented a digital system which will take down Uber. He's been posing as someone with great power and behind the scenes influence from FL but he's most likely just an angry Lyft driver from Cali. Zero proof for any of his big boasting.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


companies will be forced to settle lawsuits and give more control back to drivers

no driver is going to be an employee in the end


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

So, Uber will get to close its door sooner?


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

So what if Uber is hurt or disappeared tomorrow? There is no reason to believe Uber and Lyft are the only ones who can do what is essentially electronic taxi dispatch. Just look at how badly they do it anyway! There is nothing special about their software and both their driver and rider base could literally evaporate overnight. There would be an obvious learning curve for the new players initially (see Austin a few years back) but they'd catch on quickly.

I always go back to the Napster analogy because it is incredibly apt in many ways. Napster was pretty reckless and disregarded legalities like royalties, etc. But they *did* disrupt an industry sorely in need of a kick in the rear and pulled them into the 21st century. Today, we now have stuff like Pandora and Spotify and are better for it; no one argues that we should go back to Napster and keep up that system of music distribution. And this fate awaits both Uber and Lyft. They will either adapt and evolve to play by the rules or hopefully die and be replaced by much better options that are not highly exploitative. 

The status quo of breaking laws and burning cash is simply unsustainable and quite frankly, is just a high tech "bezzle" to make a few rich guys richer. Like the NY Times op ed article recently said, it was a nice idea that was simply corrupted and perverted by run amok greed. Governments are simply playing catch up.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

mrpjfresh said:


> So what if Uber is hurt or disappeared tomorrow? There is no reason to believe Uber and Lyft are the only ones who can do what is essentially electronic taxi dispatch. Just look at how badly they do it anyway! There is nothing special about their software and both their driver and rider base could literally evaporate overnight. There would be an obvious learning curve for the new players initially (see Austin a few years back) but they'd catch on quickly.
> 
> I always go back to the Napster analogy because it is incredibly apt in many ways. Napster was pretty reckless and disregarded legalities like royalties, etc. But they *did* disrupt an industry sorely in need of a kick in the rear and pulled them into the 21st century. Today, we now have stuff like Pandora and Spotify and are better for it; no one argues that we should go back to Napster and keep up that system of music distribution. And this fate awaits both Uber and Lyft. They will either adapt and evolve to play by the rules or hopefully die and be replaced by much better options that are not highly exploitative.
> 
> The status quo of breaking laws and burning cash is simply unsustainable and quite frankly, is just a high tech "bezzle" to make a few rich guys richer. Like the NY Times op ed article recently said, it was a nice idea that was simply corrupted and perverted by run amok greed. Governments are simply playing catch up.


What's going to end up happening?

Uber/lyft fold, as making drivers actual real employees is just THAT hard.

Locally... the cab companies will have to hire their drivers as employees and start paying hourly+ tips. (This may lead to an increase in the number of driver positions.

This is due to the drivers no longer working 80 hour weeks. (or maybe not

This will inevitably lead to an increase in prices when the cab companies petition the regulatory boards for higher taxi fares.

AND! they are going to approve it when the cab companies show up with all kinds of fancy mathamagic showing how the changing regulatory conditions caused an increase to costs.

But why would uber/lyft close up shop?

Well... legally employees are entitled to minimum wage after all deductible expenses.

LIKE MILEAGE!

So they either have to buy/fuel cars for all their drivers (which WILL be exploited, as all company vehicles are) or pay .58 for every mile driven, plus min per hour whenever they are activly working or on call for very short periods of time (less than hours).

In orlando the uber drivers would be required to be paid roughly..

$8.25- base hourly
20-30 miles (11.60-$17.40)

For a total of
$19.85-$25.65 AN HOUR

*12 hours your looking at $200-$300*

This is on top of the employer taxes and other employer related costs, on top of management costs.

Additionally.... if this goes into effect the management costs are going to skyrocket to no end.

Everyone from every one of those companies has stated that losing the employment classification is the end.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


I don't either. I want them to give us the passenger's destination address before we accept the ride request. If Uber does that, it will help them with their claim that we're IC's.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> I do not want to hurt Uber. I do want them to go back to old rates though.


Dream on dreamer.


----------



## MarvinG (Dec 20, 2016)

Why?

Don't you want a guaranteed minimum wage for all drivers?

Don't you want Uber drivers' medical costs to be taken care if in case of accidents and injuries while driving for Uber?

Don't you want access to health insurance for Uber drivers?

Don't you want protections for Uber drivers so that they cannot be deactivated at the whim of a passenger?

Why do you not wish to have these protections?



Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


You've been treated like an employee this entire time - only worse.



No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


Government intervention?

Dude, Tony West is their senior VP of operations and chief legal adviser. In fact, there's heaps of former government a-holes at the company. How do you think they've gotten away with screwing everyone so thoroughly?


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


It's clear that you are willing this to happen.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

OldBay said:


> It's clear that you are willing this to happen.


You have no idea. Over 40 years in banking not my first time. Now that we're retired all 12 of us fully focused on diluting the valuation. At best should be reasonably valued around $32. But without free cash flow and no assets, not even intellectual, it's easier than most think. As public and investors perception turns negative, all there's left is drivers, who are overwhelmly disgruntled. Uber does not have any loyalty from drivers nor riders. Uber already took care of that.



mrpjfresh said:


> So what if Uber is hurt or disappeared tomorrow? There is no reason to believe Uber and Lyft are the only ones who can do what is essentially electronic taxi dispatch. Just look at how badly they do it anyway! There is nothing special about their software and both their driver and rider base could literally evaporate overnight. There would be an obvious learning curve for the new players initially (see Austin a few years back) but they'd catch on quickly.
> 
> I always go back to the Napster analogy because it is incredibly apt in many ways. Napster was pretty reckless and disregarded legalities like royalties, etc. But they *did* disrupt an industry sorely in need of a kick in the rear and pulled them into the 21st century. Today, we now have stuff like Pandora and Spotify and are better for it; no one argues that we should go back to Napster and keep up that system of music distribution. And this fate awaits both Uber and Lyft. They will either adapt and evolve to play by the rules or hopefully die and be replaced by much better options that are not highly exploitative.
> 
> The status quo of breaking laws and burning cash is simply unsustainable and quite frankly, is just a high tech "bezzle" to make a few rich guys richer. Like the NY Times op ed article recently said, it was a nice idea that was simply corrupted and perverted by run amok greed. Governments are simply playing catch up.


Someone knows what's he's talking about. Well put.



MarvinG said:


> Why?
> 
> Don't you want a guaranteed minimum wage for all drivers?
> 
> ...


Because there's a much better and equitable way for drivers to get all that without limitations. 
That's a long discussion that I'm not ready yet to discuss. But yes you will get 100% of fares, run your own business, without an umbilical cord attached. Btw, 100% of fares at whatever market allows. If uber wants to compete by lowering further it won't affect you at all. How low can they go zero. A platform that doesn't rely on percentage of fares for revel streams is not affected by competition. What truly works is an ecosystem not a dispatching middle man.
We'll talk further when im allowed. For now focus on weakening uber. They depend on drivers. That's all they've got.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

mrpjfresh said:


> So what if Uber is hurt or disappeared tomorrow? There is no reason to believe Uber and Lyft are the only ones who can do what is essentially electronic taxi dispatch. Just look at how badly they do it anyway! There is nothing special about their software and both their driver and rider base could literally evaporate overnight. There would be an obvious learning curve for the new players initially (see Austin a few years back) but they'd catch on quickly.
> 
> I always go back to the Napster analogy because it is incredibly apt in many ways. Napster was pretty reckless and disregarded legalities like royalties, etc. But they *did* disrupt an industry sorely in need of a kick in the rear and pulled them into the 21st century. Today, we now have stuff like Pandora and Spotify and are better for it; no one argues that we should go back to Napster and keep up that system of music distribution. And this fate awaits both Uber and Lyft. They will either adapt and evolve to play by the rules or hopefully die and be replaced by much better options that are not highly exploitative.
> 
> The status quo of breaking laws and burning cash is simply unsustainable and quite frankly, is just a high tech "bezzle" to make a few rich guys richer. Like the NY Times op ed article recently said, it was a nice idea that was simply corrupted and perverted by run amok greed. Governments are simply playing catch up.


Mostly well said but Spotify is the music industry equivalent of Uber. They pay the worst royalties in the history of recorded music, even when adjusted for inflation. Independents are especially made to suffer.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> tated that losing the employment classification is the end


I agree. You see preemptive changes already with Tryp (the whole MLM/scam can of worms aside) treating drivers more like contractors precisely because they do not want the financial burden of employees or the lawsuits.

My big question is, while taxis will have a role to play, I do not think they can fill the void alone in all but a few select markets. They simply do not have the numbers. I could see a company contracting *with* taxis in a similar fashion to how Uber does now, as a supplemental workforce. TNCs are too ubiquitous and useful in most places to just die and disappear entirely especially now that governments, municipalities, airports are all getting a handle on them. It is the flawed, bastardized "rideshare" model that needs to be totally overhauled and rethought. Done in a different fashion that doesn't exploit and grossly undervalue the workers, I think it could be successful. Perhaps that is just too idealistic or U&L have already poisoned the well to "rideshare" similar to what happened with tipping. Idk.



MarvinG said:


> Why?


Basically the same reason that driver organization is a pipe dream. No two markets are alike and drivers do this for many, very varied reasons. We're not all playing on the same playground.

That said, it does bother me to see the truly desperate taken advantage of so badly in this gig. It also bothers me that a terrible regime like the Saudi royals will get richer, in a very small part, thanks to my participation. I do my part to educate riders or friends who ask about the realities but am aware that I am part of the problem as well.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> What's going to end up happening?
> 
> Uber/lyft fold, as making drivers actual real employees is just THAT hard.
> 
> ...


Classifying drivers as employees would force uber lyft to close down immediately. Their model not structured that way. Of course, unless they capture almost 100% of fares. Even though, prices would increase at taxi levels, then consumption precipitates and no meaningful growth. Basically both companies disintegrate.
Smaller operators would totally split markets. 
However, imagine an ecosystems equitably benefiting both drivers and riders. Similar to a coral reef where all inhabitants depend on each other. Fares 100% captivated by drivers. Therefore, real market forces apply. No middle man platform that derives its revenue streams from fares. No upfront fees from drivers at all.
That's the only model that can be sustainable.

Tryp is a MLM scam. Nevertheless, why would a driver pay upfront without guarantee of riders. How many drivers only work part time. So their system would only apply for full timers, provided there are enough riders.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> Classifying drivers as employees would force uber lyft to close down immediately. Their model not structured that way. Of course, unless they capture almost 100% of fares. Even though, prices would increase at taxi levels, then consumption precipitates and no meaningful growth. Basically both companies disintegrate.
> Smaller operators would totally split markets.
> However, imagine an ecosystems equitably benefiting both drivers and riders. Similar to a coral reef where all inhabitants depend on each other. Fares 100% captivated by drivers. Therefore, real market forces apply. No middle man platform that derives its revenue streams from fares. No upfront fees from drivers at all.
> That's the only model that can be sustainable.
> ...


No one wins if drivers become employees. This is why drivers shouldn't sue for misclassification but for fraud. Everyone is better off with drivers being - and being treated as - independent contractors. Smart drivers will know how to price for success while others will price themselves out of business.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

mrpjfresh said:


> I agree. You see preemptive changes already with Tryp (the whole MLM/scam can of worms aside) treating drivers more like contractors precisely because they do not want the financial burden of employees or the lawsuits.
> 
> My big question is, while taxis will have a role to play, I do not think they can fill the void alone in all but a few select markets. They simply do not have the numbers. I could see a company contracting *with* taxis in a similar fashion to how Uber does now, as a supplemental workforce. TNCs are too ubiquitous and useful in most places to just die and disappear entirely especially now that governments, municipalities, airports are all getting a handle on them. It is the flawed, bastardized "rideshare" model that needs to be totally overhauled and rethought. Done in a different fashion that doesn't exploit and grossly undervalue the workers, I think it could be successful. Perhaps that is just too idealistic or U&L have already poisoned the well to "rideshare" similar to what happened with tipping. Idk.
> 
> ...


Sir from everything I've read in this forum since I started following, long before my first exchange, your statements are the most aligned with the basis of the model we're trying to develop.

Without disclosing beyond my limitations, below is a short synopsis of our model.

Nevertheless, we are in the process of securing the architecture partner while several top and very well known providers have expressed interest. They understand the main purpose is to liberate the millions of drivers and maintain capacity development.

But, the hardest part is securing our intellectual property during negotiations, until proper legal protections are in place.

Sustainability has already passed all financial tests. Actually Uber unintentionally provided the structure, except our revenue streams are totally different.

Unlike uber, lyft and almost every company out there, fares are inconsequential to us. Therefore, only drivers benefit from fares. Also, unlike Tryp our model doesn't rely on any upfront fees from drivers. Absolutely none.

"We believe our role is that of a digital ecosystem structure that enables the millions of people creating the capability for others to move around to have an equitable relationship with those benefiting."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Carbuncle said:


> No one wins if drivers become employees. This is why drivers shouldn't sue for misclassification but for fraud. Everyone is better off with drivers being - and being treated as - independent contractors. Smart drivers will know how to price for success while others will price themselves out of business.


you sue for misclassification and force them to settle for giving up the control that mandates we are employees

it's not rocket science

in the end Uber will give up control rather than have to call us employees


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

If Uber would just pay a fair wage this would all be avoidable.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> you sue for misclassification and force them to settle for giving up the control that mandates we are employees
> 
> it's not rocket science
> 
> in the end Uber will give up control rather than have to call us employees


Please reread my post.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Michael1230nj said:


> If Uber would just pay a fair wage this would all be avoidable.


Uber couldn't get more investors so to slow the burn rate they have to burn drivers. Even if Uber captured 80% of fares it still would lose money. Their model does not work. Impossible.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> Uber couldn't get more investors so to slow the burn rate they have to burn drivers. Even if Uber captured 80% of fares it still would lose money. Their model does not work. Impossible.


They have gotten more funds but it's definitely slowed. PayPal just dumped half a billion into them and Saudis and SoftBank keep throwing money at them??


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Terrific pre IPO news.


----------



## Lyftmeister (May 1, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


you won't know if its working until their stock goes public, unless if they happen to lower their IPO valuation/capitalization again beforehand. I'm not so sure it'll suffer that much anyway. As I mentioned in another thread, Tesla has continued to lose money after nine or ten years past since their IPO, yet the stock is still well above their IPO price. There's way too many investors willing to "gamble" on Tesla for various reasons, and yet despite all the bad news/publicity Elon Musk and Tesla get, their stock gets plugging along. I think the same will happen for Uber. There's one saying that seems to definitely fit them; "Any news is good news".


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Lyftmeister said:


> you won't know if its working until their stock goes public, unless if they happen to lower their IPO valuation/capitalization again beforehand. I'm not so sure it'll suffer that much anyway. As I mentioned in another thread, Tesla has continued to lose money after nine or ten years past since their IPO, yet the stock is still well above their IPO price. There's way too many investors willing to "gamble" on Tesla for various reasons, and yet despite all the bad news/publicity Elon Musk and Tesla get, their stock gets plugging along. I think the same will happen for Uber. There's one saying that seems to definitely fit them; "Any news is good news".


Not a valid comparison. Tesla has tremendous liquidity and assets. They actually invent and manufacture cutting edge hardware and software and are leading the pack on private space exploration technologies. They have two massive facilities (and other "smaller" facilities) with more in the works, notably in China and soon in Europe.

Tesla also leases some of its real estate to other large corporations and manufacturers and has licensing revenues.

Tesla has also consistently proven its naysayers wrong, as well as proven that they're not only in it for the money but for the betterment of mankind.

They don't have an endless parade of scandals and blatantly illegal behavior. They have a genuinely likable leader in Musk, one so indelibly linked to the brand that removing him would cause damage to its value.

Hell, Uber doesn't even seem to try to behave like a truly cutting edge tech company so much as a bunch of frat brats who think transportation is no different than social media or a video game. They sure as ? don't treat their network like the marketplace they claim.

Uber, Lyft, and clowns like WeWork have the most suicidal business models I have ever seen. And this despite the endless parade of high powered, well funded people who have lined up to provide "interventions" and talk them off the ledge with levels of patience that would make Mother Theresa weep with envy from the grave.


----------



## Lyftmeister (May 1, 2019)

Carbuncle, I agree mostly with what you say, but the basic idea is that both are losing money, yet investors continue to be attracted has merit. Yes, Tesla is in to various ventures, and Uber is as well, though some are questionable as well, ie UberEats, and then there's UberFreight, which I don't know anything, as well as their scooters, which are extremely popular in Dallas, and then they've got that whole autonomous vehicle thing they're working so hard on (to the demise of their core service, no doubt). Elon Musk has not been near as toxic to his company as that clown Travis was, and you're comments about his pertinence to the company is valid, but he has said a lot of things, making promises in his projections of output of units and ETAs, etc. as well as that comment about taking the company private, which is still going with the SEC. Elon has said some things I'm sure made his executives cringe, but the common thread with Uber is that any news is good news (for the most part). Tesla's stock has ebbed and flowed, but it's still vastly higher than it's IPO price. Regarding the fundamentals, every so-called expert will tell you Tesla is a bad investment- same thing for Uber, yet I imagine Uber's stock will be able to soldier on, much like Tesla's.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

No Prisoners said:


> Wish I could. Partners in Seattle this week negotiating architecture. Trying to rush for press releases IPO date.
> If it works out on time I will give this forum first look at it.
> 
> All my threads and post are followed by "show ignored content" box. Evidently someone I've designated "ignored" has such an interest on me that has the need to ghost me. Poor miserable life these persons must live. Wonder how their own mothers feel about them now. Bet they regret no abortion. Imagine having that kind of scum as a child. Most likely they're living in their cars or trailer homes.
> Forgive them Lord as they don't know better.


-----------------------
That is a bit harsh and not necessary. Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours. 
Keep in mind that everyone is fighting their own battle to survive.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

KK2929 said:


> -----------------------
> That is a bit harsh and not necessary. Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours.
> Keep in mind that everyone is fighting their own battle to survive.


He's an insecure Lyft driver. It's all hot air to make himself feel important in front of a few drivers. His big claims have zero proof.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

KK2929 said:


> -----------------------
> That is a bit harsh and not necessary. Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours.
> Keep in mind that everyone is fighting their own battle to survive.


Don't intend to disrespect anyone who legitimately interacts with sensible and intelligent discussions. However, some uber trolls have honed in on my post picking on the slightest imperfections. I understand their purpose. One specific character asked details about our model, after I replied that for contractual restraints I could not disclose details he went on an irate sequence of posts, then followed me thereafter trying to instigate. I suspect he remains, but can't tell since he's in ignored trash bin.
I don't consider myself of higher stature over anyone. In fact I'm the most imperfect person I know. But much rather ignore trolls than allow them to successfully disrupt my concentration. It's futile to discuss with someone with an agenda to disrupt and create confusion.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Lyftmeister said:


> Carbuncle, I agree mostly with what you say, but the basic idea is that both are losing money, yet investors continue to be attracted has merit. Yes, Tesla is in to various ventures, and Uber is as well, though some are questionable as well, ie UberEats, and then there's UberFreight, which I don't know anything, as well as their scooters, which are extremely popular in Dallas, and then they've got that whole autonomous vehicle thing they're working so hard on (to the demise of their core service, no doubt). Elon Musk has not been near as toxic to his company as that clown Travis was, and you're comments about his pertinence to the company is valid, but he has said a lot of things, making promises in his projections of output of units and ETAs, etc. as well as that comment about taking the company private, which is still going with the SEC. Elon has said some things I'm sure made his executives cringe, but the common thread with Uber is that any news is good news (for the most part). Tesla's stock has ebbed and flowed, but it's still vastly higher than it's IPO price. Regarding the fundamentals, every so-called expert will tell you Tesla is a bad investment- same thing for Uber, yet I imagine Uber's stock will be able to soldier on, much like Tesla's.


Nope.

Uber doesn't make anything. Their proprietary software is not only terribly flawed it's immensely easy to replicate and even improve upon.

Uber torches its capital in an increasingly failed attempt to monopolize the industry while Tesla burns capital in order to improve its product line and eventually reach solvency.

These simply aren't even remotely comparable entities. The similarities begin and end in that both deal in their own wildly divergent ways with transportation.

Uber has betrayed literally every entity it has engaged with while Tesla has made every effort to respect its relationships, minor dalliances aside.

Had Uber spent the bulk of its funds on improvements to its technology and respecting its consumer base we'd be having a completely different conversation. But that's not the case at all. Everything about Uber has been in a state of continual deterioration. Had they simply worked with regulators they wouldn't be in this mess.

The Uber app still has all of the same problems and glitches it's had for years. Rider complaints are in lockstep with the atrocious pay and treatment of drivers. Uber is the most dangerous service of its kind in every market it operates in and refuses to do what it must to fix this. Uber consistently lags further and further behind nearly all of its competitors in the AV space. They own a lot of real estate but that's losing them money. They recklessly acquire assets (mostly software) that reeks of desperation more than measured strategizing.

I could go on.

Basically, Uber STILL has no f%#*g idea what it's doing and is increasingly realizing it.

The IPO in a year that will end in a recession is merely an attempt to recoup losses for early investors. It's a pump and dump and the only ones who will make money will be those who short the stock.

The only path to profitability is for Uber to completely reverse course and do everything they've stubbornly refused to do to this point.

The egos at Uber will simply not agree to do so.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

KK2929 said:


> -----------------------
> That is a bit harsh and not necessary. Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours.
> Keep in mind that everyone is fighting their own battle to survive.


Sir your critique of my post is perfect example of my response to you. I truly appreciate the abundance of sensible eloquence in your short statement. You made me realize that my post is harsh, mostly because readers don't know who the intended target is. Therefore, my apologies to all except whoever is in my ignored bin. Can't tell identity since I can't see it nor care to look. 
As for you I welcome your criticism and look forward to hearing any others you may have when I slip. 
Thank you.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

KK2929 said:


> -----------------------
> That is a bit harsh and not necessary. Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours.
> Keep in mind that everyone is fighting their own battle to survive.


Everyone would not be having such a hard time of it if they put their egos aside and learned to organize under a common cause.

Battle alone and defeat is certain for nearly everyone. Battle in unison and victory is vastly more assured. There are no guarantees, only odds. Odds of survival increase when people work as a team.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Everyone would not be having such a hard time of it if they put their egos aside and learned to organize under a common cause.
> 
> Battle alone and defeat is certain for nearly everyone. Battle in unison and victory is vastly more assured. There are no guarantees, only odds. Odds of survival increase when people work as a team.


You're 100% correct. However, keep in mind corporate trolls here with intent to divide and conquer. Therefore, as soon as I notice they go to trash ignore bin.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> You're 100% correct. However, keep in mind corporate trolls here with intent to divide and conquer. Therefore, as soon as I notice they go to trash ignore bin.


I can't help myself. Like a cat, I like to play with my food before I eat it.

Most of these corpo-trolls are rookies, anyway.

BRING IT ON????


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Uber will just hire illegals because they won’t complain, until the Democrats get back in power.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

peteyvavs said:


> Uber will just hire illegals because they won't complain, until the Democrats get back in power.


Uber is stuffed to the gills with Democrats. It's why they've been getting away with this crap for so long.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> What is to be gained by this? I do not want to be an employee.


Plenty is to be gained.

Uber's belief that the govt will not interfere in how they treat their drivers has always been an important part of uber's extreme hubris.

Their hubris and absence of ethics are the reasons they treat their drivers like dirt.

Now with NYC, Connecticut, Dynamex, driver uprisings, and increased scrutiny from the media, uber's hubris is in decline.

As their hubris declines, they'll become more amenable to paying and treating their drivers better.



Carbuncle said:


> No one wins if drivers become employees. This is why drivers shouldn't sue for misclassification but for fraud. Everyone is better off with drivers being - and being treated as - independent contractors. Smart drivers will know how to price for success while others will price themselves out of business.


I don't want to be an employee either.

Drivers who demand it haven't thought it thru as far as the consequences are concerned (layoffs, work schedules, limited hours, etc)

However, the genuine THREAT of employee status could be more than enough to force uber to pay the drivers a decent wage and treat them better as a way to PREVENT employee status.



Ssgcraig said:


> I do not want to hurt Uber. I do want them to go back to old rates though.


If their rotten treatment of the drivers is what puts them out of business, that will be true justice.

If that occurs, their body won't have time to get cold before new companies take their place, and hopefully the new companies will get the message that failure to treat the drivers with respect can lead to the demise of the company.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Plenty is to be gained.
> 
> Uber's belief that the govt will not interfere in how they treat their drivers has always been an important part of uber's extreme hubris.
> 
> ...


Drivers should be free to set their own rates from an established floor. Those who go too high or low will get little work.


----------



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

No Prisoners said:


> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


As usual, total bunkum. My way of thinking does not harm or benefit Uber in any way. I could think like a 16th century renaissance painter and my thoughts would equally have no impact whatsoever.

And why would any driver want to hurt Uber? If Uber fails then that would be one fewer option for earning money.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Well... legally employees are entitled to minimum wage after all deductible expenses.
> 
> LIKE MILEAGE!


As of 2018, Mileage is no longer a deductible expense for employees. If your employer doesnt reimburse you, and they are not required to, then you are really screwed.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> As usual, total bunkum. My way of thinking does not harm or benefit Uber in any way. I could think like a 16th century renaissance painter and my thoughts would equally have no impact whatsoever.
> 
> And why would any driver want to hurt Uber? If Uber fails then that would be one fewer option for earning money.


If Uber fails it opens the market up to competition. One of the main reasons Uber has been playing this game is to attempt to create a monopoly. It's totally illegal but everyone is so convinced that low prices are all that matters now that there's too little resistance.

The US, from top to bottom, has become so unbelievably stupid.

The best thing for drivers is for these jerks to collapse so that the industry can have more options and be better regulated.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> If Uber fails it opens the market up to competition. One of the main reasons Uber has been playing this game is to attempt to create a monopoly. It's totally illegal but everyone is so convinced that low prices are all that matters now that there's too little resistance.
> 
> The US, from top to bottom, has become so unbelievably stupid.
> 
> The best thing for drivers is for these jerks to collapse so that the industry can have more options and be better regulated.


Ignore trolls and keep pounding. Uber's already hurting. Even the AFL-CIO now supports rideshare drivers strike. Uber's in damage control mode. 
For every point stock drops valuation drops $180 million. 
The 8th going to be overwhelming following other actions on IPO date. 
Here is the bonus. On IPO date Trump increasing Chinese tariffs to 25% on $200 billion Chinese goods. Markets expected to react. Karma Uber, karma.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Michael1230nj said:


> If Uber would just pay a fair wage this would all be avoidable.


Your issue is that you arent being paid a fair WAGE. What you fail to understand that you are not paid a WAGE at all. You are not an employee. You are paid a contracted amount that you agreed to. This is not a wage and if you disagree with the contract you can say no and not take the contract.

Ex. Someone wants to hire you to drive their car across country for $200. You can say yes or no. Thats the contract they are offering, its your choice if you are willing to do that. Some will take that contract because they want to go there and not pay airfare or bus fare. The extra $200 looks great to them! Others say hell no! My time is more valuable! If uber doesnt provide you with the amount you want then cancel the contract and get a job as an EMPLOYEE with a guaranteed wage. Business is business and nobody guaranteed that any business would be profitable. If i lived in an area where uber pays $0.60 per mile and $0.05 per minute, i WOULD NOT STEP FOOT IN MY CAR. As simple as that. If the complainers all quit then uber would be forced to raise rates in that area. Aparently there are enough drivers that think that rate is good enough for them. Let them do it while you get a job a McDs with guaranteed minimum wage.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

NotanEmployee said:


> Your issue is that you arent being paid a fair WAGE. What you fail to understand that you are not paid a WAGE at all. You are not an employee. You are paid a contracted amount that you agreed to. This is not a wage and if you disagree with the contract you can say no and not take the contract.
> 
> Ex. Someone wants to hire you to drive their car across country for $200. You can say yes or no. Thats the contract they are offering, its your choice if you are willing to do that. Some will take that contract because they want to go there and not pay airfare or bus fare. The extra $200 looks great to them! Others say hell no! My time is more valuable! If uber doesnt provide you with the amount you want then cancel the contract and get a job as an EMPLOYEE with a guaranteed wage. Business is business and nobody guaranteed that any business would be profitable. If i lived in an area where uber pays $0.60 per mile and $0.05 per minute, i WOULD NOT STEP FOOT IN MY CAR. As simple as that. If the complainers all quit then uber would be forced to raise rates in that area. Aparently there are enough drivers that think that rate is good enough for them. Let them do it while you get a job a McDs with guaranteed minimum wage.


Man, you LOOOOOVE Kool-Aid.

Uber fixes the market and eliminates nearly all negotiating power. They also have a lengthy history of inducing people into taking on huge financial liabilities while lying to them. This is well proven.

Also, there's a reason why many industries won't allow contractors to go too low on jobs because it creates a proven, measurable public safety hazard. This is a fact well established in for-hire driving professions.

I have an abundance of evidence that Uber refuses to let drivers "negotiate" for a better price. It's especially acute as of late. Ever since Lyft's IPO drivers have an almost impossible time getting surge requests.

Keep mainlining that Kool-Aid. Your overlords appreciate it.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Many industries there is no negotiating. You either accept the contracted ammount or dont take the contract. No kool aid here. Im just telling you how it works. My husband works in healthcare and deals with contracts from the state, county, insurance companies, etc. They all work this way. Many of his contracts he loses lots of money on. He can choose to say no or he can take the loss. Its his choice just like its yours if you choose to do it.

You are not a victim. Move on and get a job if you dont like runnung your own business.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

NotanEmployee said:


> Many industries there is no negotiating. You either accept the contracted ammount or dont take the contract. No kool aid here. Im just telling you how it works. My husband works in healthcare and deals with contracts from the state, county, insurance companies, etc. They all work this way. Many of his contracts he loses lots of money on. He can choose to say no or he can take the loss. Its his choice just like its yours if you choose to do it.
> 
> You are not a victim. Move on and get a job if you dont like runnung your own business.


What you're referencing is a "contract of adhesion," literally the exact opposite of a contractor agreement.

I've worked as a contractor and independent many times. My father is a retired GC. Neither of us have ever seen the kind of crap these "gig" platforms pull. Ever.

The whole point of being an independent is that it gives you negotiating power.

Regardless, no business is legally allowed to circumvent long established regulations that decades of research have proven are necessary to protect the public.

Your husband should be keeping a record of al of this. No one can compel anyone to lose money. The magic word here is "precedent."

You and your husband would do well to learn about the history of regulations in the US. You both also need to read the Borello Test, which all of these "gig" companies violate in spades.

Keep playing the willing dupe the way corrupted politicians (Tony West) and corporate heads want you to and you just help turn the US back into the third world crap heap it was.

Unions and wage protections did more to create the middle class (which reached its peak from the 50's to the early 80's) than anything ever did. Without bargaining power employees have nothing.



NotanEmployee said:


> Many industries there is no negotiating. You either accept the contracted ammount or dont take the contract. No kool aid here. Im just telling you how it works. My husband works in healthcare and deals with contracts from the state, county, insurance companies, etc. They all work this way. Many of his contracts he loses lots of money on. He can choose to say no or he can take the loss. Its his choice just like its yours if you choose to do it.
> 
> You are not a victim. Move on and get a job if you dont like runnung your own business.


Oh, and one of the core tenets of actual capitalism is the ability of all parties to negotiate the terms of a contract. This was a primary assertion of Adam Smith, the acknowledged godfather of capitalism. Any nation that denies employees the right to negotiate employment terms is NOT a capitalist country. That's a fact.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Here is a LinkedIn post from 2015 that addresses some of the issues raised here. Some of the comments/ideas are a little dated.
Posted in three parts because of size.
Part 1:
*The Transportation Dilemma; A Perspective and Proposed Solution*

_Uber, Lyft and other "ride sharing" services certainly present a quandary for both users and regulators. Vastly popular and serving thousands of passengers, these services are revolutionizing the taxi and limousine industries. Unfortunately, that benefit comes at the price of impaired public safety, fair employment standards and public accountability. Regulators around the country are struggling with existing rules and trying to create means to capture the benefits that the new technologies and service structures provide.

The history of Napster vs. the recording industry is a good analogy for the seismic shift happening now in the transportation industry. Napster promoted the illegal sharing of copyrighted music recordings. But a lot of us welcomed the ability to access music online for many reasons: no requirement to buy whole albums, ability to find rare songs, no more driving to stores to make purchases. So we participated by using Napster and similar sites to download the songs we wanted. Today record stores are gone and music is delivered electronically over the web legally, and with the cooperation of the recording industry. But if you look back at the early confrontations between the music sharing sites and the recording industry, the record companies just wanted to turn the clock back to the time before Napster came along. They referenced laws being broken, they wanted the sites shut down, and they wanted to be reimbursed for lost revenue. Meanwhile, they ignored the value presented by the new model. Sound familiar? These are the objections that the taxi and limo industries are currently voicing loudly.

Steve Jobs did us all a great service by stepping into the "music sharing" chasm and hammering out a set of rules that allowed technology to bring us the benefits of music over the web while ensuring artists and studios were rewarded for their work. The other important element that Jobs understood was the need for an "end-to-end" system that covered licensing, promotion, media format, copy protection, user agreements, sales, web distribution and eventual use right down to the file-compatible portable media player. Hence, iTunes licensing, iTunes website, iTunes media app, device synchronization, all the way through to the iPod player. We need such problem solving end-to-end solution leadership now in the transportation field.

In the same fashion that Napster ignored copyright laws to gain popularity, the new ridesharing companies exist by ignoring basic employment laws, skirting insurance regulations and ensuring that their "contractor" employee base is powerless to effect change or act effectively on their own behalf. Uber's president Kalanick and Lyft's president Zimmer now wear the "evil" hats of Monsieurs Shawn Fanning and Shawn Parker of Napster fame. But the benefits they have introduced are obvious and substantial. If we are to embrace these new services with their game changing methods, then we must also admit that the current ride share model is not sustainable. Support by passengers is overwhelming, but the downside has been demonstrated in injured drivers, injured and killed pedestrians and brazen attempts by the ride sharing services to hold themselves unaccountable. In so many cases, pedestrians, ride share drivers and passengers are exposed to the risks of a new set of unsupervised and untrained "stranger drivers." In many cases, passengers, drivers and the public are left with the unacceptable financial consequences of the lopsided agreements required to either use or work for these new companies. And most, if not all of these services, rely on the naiveté and desperation of low wage workers to make the ride share business plans work. Many, if not most, of the ride share drivers see their earnings eaten up in gas, depreciation, maintenance and taxes. Whether they willfully work for less than minimum wage, or abusively long periods of work, these conditions cannot be tolerated over time. The wheels of regulatory agencies that will address these important shortcomings turn slowly but they are now beginning to have an impact on the growth of this new sector. We will probably see many more regulatory agencies take back the territory they have forfeited in the last year or two as the results of their inaction become apparent. If these agencies have their way, we run the risk of losing some important advances in transportation. But to avoid this calamity it will cost us, all of us. Just as today's music is a dollar or two per tune, and still a good deal, it is no longer free as in the Napster model.

In addition to money out of our collective pocket, the stakeholders need to change their assumptions about their obligations to, and their benefits from, this new model. The taxi model is not broken the world over. Properly regulated and technology-advanced taxi services work well in many European and Asian countries. Today, municipalities, medallion holders, drivers and passengers all must share the blame for one of today's most egregious service failures in America: Taxi transportation. And they all need to contribute to making a new end-to end service model that gives stakeholders a fair shake.

First-off, let's all agree municipalities need to receive revenue from the services that take advantage of city-provided benefits of streets, parking, police, etc. as well as the cost of insuring quality taxi services for the public . Furthermore, many academic studies on taxi regulation throughout the world point to eventual higher prices and lowered service when regulation is removed. The record shows that municipalities have a legitimate argument about limiting the number of vehicles to ensure driver income, setting predictable public pricing, and guaranteeing access to elderly, disabled and the disenfranchised, along with vehicle safety, driver monitoring, etc., Deregulation is therefore not the answer. Some of the most glaring examples of taxi service shortcomings are to be found in suburban and rural taxi services that are not regulated or monitored as they are in larger cities.

At the core of the problem is the way municipalities have dealt with the issue of granting taxi permits (or medallions). When these permits are transferable and can last almost indefinitely, they become a speculative commodity. Hence the revenue goes to the speculators and not the drivers. Taxi medallions have appreciated 100 fold in a few decades in New York. There are many similar examples elsewhere in the country. Conventional medallion ownership also helps create a system that disconnects the driver who provides the actual service from the company that puts the car on the street. Because the taxi company makes its money solely from the car rental to the driver, there is no incentive to provide adequate service to the passenger since the quality of service will have no direct impact on taxi companies' or medallion holders' revenue.

With the advances in technology (GPS satellite based location fixes and mobile data), it now becomes easier to track and report the daily movement and income of each vehicle/permit holder. Cities can now accurately receive tax revenue from daily mileage use rather than just the initial permit. This income stream would free permits to be issued with time limits, require the driver to be the permit holder and make them non-transferrable, ending medallion speculation, lowering cost and ensuring that more of the revenue goes to the hard working drivers.

The next level of municipal responsibility is to set an even playing field for operators. Geolocation (using satellites to find a device's location) of mobile fleets has been around for over 20 years. Popular devices like the Blackberry, iPhone and Android phones can now provide that capability to the general public as well, and the scale of use has brought the cost to within nearly everyone's budget. Now both passengers and service providers can meet up with great efficiency, routes can be predicted, cost estimates given before the ride begins, and a record of the transportation can be stored for later review, analysis, dispute mediation, and even tax revenue. These location based benefits rely on an adequate satellite signal plus a durable cellular wireless connection as well. Conventional taxi meters measure mileage driven and the duration of the trip and calculate the resulting fare. The taxi meter for today and beyond should be a smart mobile device with GPS capability and a durable cellular network connection. This is the fundamental productivity leap the new ridesharing services offer. Municipalities need to embrace these benefits and ensure that all transportation providers employ them, not just the upstarts.

There are a few tweaks and improvements that need to be incorporated in this system to make it durable. In the majority of personal cell phone apps, the mapping database is stored on the application provider's server and the mobile device sends the current position fix over the cell system and the server sends back a map picture or other data. The new rideshare companies also send back a calculation of fare, passenger info, and other important data to the vehicle. This is how the two wireless technologies work together, and if one or the other is not available then the service does not work. There are times in dense urban areas with tall buildings , parking garages, or forested residential areas where GPS satellite data becomes blocked or distorted. And, as all cell phone users know, one can drive to areas with poor or non-existent cell coverage. Either one of these failings can block a ride's driving directions, stop the fare calculation or keep the job from being properly started or ended on the ridesharing application. Because of these intermittent difficulties, cities in the US, and Europe have challenged the new competitors' ability to accurately calculate or fairly charge a customer. But they are wrong. If taxicabs are required to use a new, GPS based taxi meter, then the map database and rate tables can instead be stored in the mobile device itself and updated as necessary, so navigation is not hindered in bad cell phone coverage areas. Taxis can therefore work around these problems and have an ability to point to the actual drop off address on the displayed map and manually enter the time the ride ends. Then the mobile device can calculate the charges and when the vehicle is back in cell phone range, this info is forwarded for storage to the taxi provider. If a credit card on file with the service provider is being used for the payment, then the delayed transaction is charged when the taxi is back in cell network range. This is the new taxi meter standard that everyone should adopt and it should include these safeguards.

Additionally, municipalities must also create a public complaint forum that is transparent, fair, incredibly prompt and with results usable by the public via web rankings or personal postings. Here, they should either have access to the taxi companies vehicle tracking history or have the taxi companies submit their information directly to the municipalities for record keeping. Cities currently store GPS tracking info on their public safety vehicles, buses and even street sweepers, they can store the taxi routes too. This could be a gold mine for civic planners, traffic engineers, housing advocates and others.. If General Motors can track their OnStar vehicles for the last 15 years, cities can and should keep records of their cabs. Driver went the wrong way? Want to dispute the fare? Now there is a record. New York city has already done this and the resulting information has turned out to be of great value. NY cab drivers have fought this feature because of privacy issues. Cab drivers must now end their objection to this "satellite supervision" or lose their jobs to the upstarts that do employ it. They are a public conveyance, not a private one.

Secondly, Medallion holders need to understand that their stranglehold on driver access to taxi vehicles must end. Municipalities can decide whether or not to compensate the holders of legacy/permanent medallions when new, shorter term driver/owner permits are issued and take over the market. Perhaps a higher mileage based (GPS) tax on current services can be a source for partial remuneration.

Next, drivers and passengers need to take responsibility for their behavior and the personal and economic risks they impose upon each other in using the service. The first major complaint about taxis probably is the quality of service provided by the unsupervised driver. Where else in business is the basic social contract tested so hard as when a passenger gets into a vehicle with a complete stranger knowing that they will probably never meet again and have little recourse when either misbehaves. Both the public and taxi drivers have their own long list of horror stories about inappropriate or dangerous behavior on behalf of the other party. Here is where the 21st century's other advance, the internet, has proven that it can change a business' attitude about customer service. Now it can help clean up a major problem in the taxi realm. Both taxi companies and drivers should have an accountable identity either through a taxi company web profile, taxi commission website, social media or transportation app profiles. Passengers can also have their user identities through transportation apps. Now both passenger and driver can be held accountable, and can also forward complaints and requests for redress easily through company, or if needed, municipal web sites. These systems need to replace the inefficient and neglectful systems that cities currently have for monitoring levels of service. Municipalities need to step up to the plate and properly respond to complaints, monitor driver performance, and suspend or terminate drivers with inappropriate or risky behavior, multiple traffic tickets or accidents. A recent news report in San Francisco found taxi drivers with criminal backgrounds and recent multiple traffic tickets. They also found no review or discipline on the part of the local transportation authority. Taxi apps need to include not only the information of the nearest available cars, but their company name, driver name and quality rating. This is easy, perhaps each carrier gets a small logo/badge image to represent its brand and so it appears as the icon for the car in the application, the driver name and star rating is superimposed over the car badge. The passenger could chose the car based on a combination of proximity to the pickup location, driver rating, and company reputation. Maybe Speedy cab has a five star reputation but is another two blocks further away than a lower rated car service. Now the passenger can chose to whether or not to wait the 2 extra minutes for the better cab company or driver.

Continued in Part 2_


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

KevinH said:


> Here is a LinkedIn post from 2015 that addresses some of the issues raised here. Some of the comments/ideas are a little dated.
> Posted in two parts because of size.
> Part 1:
> *The Transportation Dilemma; A Perspective and Proposed Solution*
> ...


A good but not "great" piece.

First off, everything about Napster was wrong and the industry (which is tethered to a massive supply chain) is still suffering, independents in particular.

The current iteration of streaming pays the worst royalties that have ever existed in the history of recorded and broadcast music, even when adjusted for inflation.

Napster was theft and piracy on a massive scale and Parker and Fanning made millions by selling the data they collected from users.

There is no justification for Napster or any model like it.

Where Napster IS an appropriate comparison is that it demonstrates the trend of those in tech to use their platforms to extort nearly everyone. Think Daniel Plainview drinking everyone's milkshakes with his long straws (anyone who hasn't seen There Will Be Blood should slap themselves and get to it).

Another problem I have with this article is that it perpetuates and endorses the gross euphemisms that techies vomit out ad nauseum. "Sharing" connotes no exchange of payment for profit. By definition, a sharing model is merely an exchange of static assets.

Leave it to Americans to pervert the concept of sharing into its exact opposite. But then Americans embrace Randroidian Selfishness, so that shouldn't be surprising.

There's more I'll say in dissecting this but ultimately there is no hope for this country if people are going to continue to be intellectually lazy and refuse to familiarize themselves with the proper definitions of terms.

Propagating confusion is one of the first lines of an offense in the beginning of a war. It's very easy to confuse the intellectually apathetic, the majority of whom are convinced that paying as little (or nothing) as possible is all that matters.

Capitalism is only possible when all parties can freely engage markets on negotIable terms.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Part 2:

_The other aspect that the web provides is branding for taxi firms. Most users are unaware and do not care about the differences between taxi companies; they rely on the nearest cab and hope for a good experience. Mobile applications will identify both company and driver and provide public ratings similar to Yelp on quality of drivers, cars and billing. Once provided with this feedback, cab companies can begin to fine tune their organizations for excellence, differentiate themselves and market their quality and reputation as customers will be given a choice when a mobile app displays multiple firms & drivers and their ratings.

Nearly all taxi drivers in the US are independent contractors and have the right to accept only the rides they want. Taxi companies cannot "send a car" or require a driver to perform a particular ride. Changing this employment standard is not going to happen any time soon as these relationships are determined by a patchwork of local and state regulations. Talk to taxi drivers and most stay away from "radio calls" where the taxi companies broadcast the requests telephoned in for rides over their two-way radio systems. There are good reasons for this but it is the source for the second largest reason for taxi failure: "The taxi never came".

Taxi pricing is built on a model of "near contiguous use", meaning that one ride ends where another is likely to begin. Taxis are most efficient in dense urban areas with a high factor of foot traffic. Here is the rub: many times the cab's driving distance to the pickup location is too great for the cab driver to earn enough for his time and miles. Furthermore, there is a very high risk that the passenger will find another ride before the cab can get there. So many of the cab drivers, if not most, turn the two-way radio off and rely on "flags" (being hailed by nearby passengers on the street). The same is happening in the ridesharing world now where rideshare drivers now ignore "pings" that are more than a few minutes away. This leaves passengers stranded, looking for a taxi driving by, taking a bus or getting in their own car. This problem has not yet been solved by any of the current providers, including the upstarts, and it must be fixed.

Passengers need to understand that a request to "come to me now" incurs a real time and vehicle costs associated with that in terms of time and distance. Next time try to get your mani-pedi done at home instead of at your favorite salon for the same cost, or have the fast food restaurant deliver the burger that you long for. Don't want to pay that cost for your desired taxi ride? Then wait forever or until a taxi appears by chance. Taxi rules can benefit here from today's technology by assigning a "drive to" cost to orders placed by mobile device and maybe even phone orders. Press the "hail" button on your app and see the nearest car available and the cost that will be charged for driving to you. Too far away and too expensive? The passenger can choose to wait until a vehicle is closer and the cost is less or take an alternative.

The second part of that risk is when the responding taxi sees a "flag" on the way to the requested ride. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush for that taxi driver, not knowing if the passenger will still be there when the cab finally arrives. Passengers also notoriously call several cab companies and take the first cab that arrives which ensures that fewer cabs will take that risk next time. Waiting passengers, doubting that a cab will ever come, will jump into a taxi driving by. Now you have the "Mexican standoff" which creates lingering resentment for both drivers and passengers. Tech solves the problem again, because it can create the financial contract at the moment of the cab accepting the ride, not when the passenger gets in the car. The charges would then begin as the taxi drives towards the pickup location. The rate for driving to the pickup location would be less than the standard mileage/time charge or perhaps the initial flat charge that taxis have called a "flag drop" would be incurred when the cab begins driving toward the pickup point, rather than being applied when the passenger enters the car. A cancellation fee is assessed to passengers if they cancel within a particular time frame, and a negative driver rating can be assigned to the cab that accepts but then cancels. The cancellation fee should be a portion of the "come to me now fee" and maybe a nuisance charge to limit frivolous requests and cancellations.

Finally passengers need to understand the trips out of the geographic hub of taxi activity can represent a financial disincentive to taxis. In the San Francisco Bay Area, cabs can charge double the rate shown on the meter when driving to other cities because the cab has to "dead-head" back to the area of likely business. Taxi software can now add multipliers when taxis are taken to areas of lesser demand. This is an important solution that cures the problem of taxis that refuse to pick up customers because of the likely destination. This is where the taxi GPS tracking can assign costs based on the likelihood of getting a fare at the destination location.

The other availability issue is the wide swing in demand. Weather, special events, rush hours, all contribute to drastic changes in the number of people looking for transportation. The ride sharing solution is to "deputize" regular citizens to drive their own cars with premium wages paid during these "surges". Remember the scores of fishermen that used their own boats to evacuate the English army from Dunkirk in WWII? It worked then but this civilian response is wrong now for a number of reasons:

First of which is liability. Personal auto insurance does not cover commercial use and there is not yet any insurance to cover both personal and commercial use. The risk is enormous, using taxi insurance rates as a peek into the liability factor, taxi insurance rates are generally over 8 times the cost of personal car insurance. Drivers of ride share service duck notifying their insurance company, an practice endorsed by the ridesharing firms. Even with proper insurance, civilian drivers risk losing their homes and total net worth in a serious or catastrophic accident. Also, they use an irreplaceable personal or family car. When that is out of service, the driver is out of work, and the family is out their car.

Personal injury is a big risk, as health policies normally exclude auto related injuries from coverage. Again, look at insurance premiums as a window into this risk. In California, workers injury insurance in the limousine trade is among the highest risk categories, along with construction truck driving,and offshore fishing. Sitting, lifting heavy luggage and auto accidents contribute to making this work risky for drivers. Taxi and limousine companies have health plans and workers compensation insurance. Rideshare companies leave this risk with their civilian drivers without compensation. All this insurance savings goes into lower prices for rideshare passengers and fatter profits for the rideshare companies.

Additionally, many people cannot accurately project the added wear and tear, depreciation and maintenance costs of using a vehicle in taxi use. With skimpy wages, a serious breakdown, collision deductable, denied coverage, new set of tires or brakes is enough to put the driver in the negative or cause them to stop work.

Then there are self-employment taxes, quarterly tax filings and more. Many rideshare drivers are at the bottom of the income and educational levels, frequently middle aged immigrant fathers who do not have the background to properly asses these factors.

Furthermore, ride sharing companies hire without personal interviews, employment history, or references. They allow their contractors to go to work each day without any supervision or monitoring. Some of the practices are laughably loose. Cars are "inspected" by sending in a single photo of the vehicle. Driver profiles can be surreptitiously changed to a new person by simply editing the name and photo of an approved driver. Recently in San Francisco, a driver hired in this fashion took a passenger on a route away from the passenger's destination, and when the passenger objected the driver pulled to the roadside, ejected the passenger and struck him in the head with a hammer, potentially causing the passenger to lose his eye. This driver had a history of police responses to domestic issues at his house, and perhaps a careful look at his work history or a pre-employment interview would have filtered out this misfit. Currently, most civilian drivers have a cursory check for criminal history, but nothing is looked at for character, reliability, dress, manners, or social skills. And no one checks in on them before or while they are working.

Most, if not all ridesharing companies do not monitor their drivers' qualifications after hiring and have no process to determine if a driver's insurance policy remains in effect after the point of hire, or if their drivers license has been revoked or the car bashed on the side. Recently an Uber driver was arrested in Tuscaloosa Alabama for dealing marijuana out of his car, with a marijuana customer riding in the back seat sampling the driver's "wares" and the driver was enjoying a "traveling cocktail" made with peach vodka. His driver's license had also been suspended.

Finally, and perhaps the highest risk to the public with civilian drivers is that there is no practical way to ensure that the mobile device that is loaded with the driver application is actually in the hands of the "approved" driver. The ride sharing companies have failed to assess the "entrepreneurship" of their low wage and immigrant community drivers. A "sting" operation at San Francisco International Airport in the spring of 2014 found many rideshare drivers with vehicles that had no insurance, drivers without licenses and other problems associated with phone and car "switching". Independent media investigation have found more examples of this problem. The San Francisco rideshare driving community has developed an underground "rental system" for these phones with the application installed or "renting" the username and password of the qualified driver for a daily, weekly or monthly rate. More frequently though, the device is passed between relatives in immigrant communities, allowing several family members to keep working while others rest.

Continued in Part 3_

Part 3
_To make matters worse, the rideshare companies currently impose extreme conditions on their civilian rideshare drivers by classifying them as independent contractors, excluding them from class actions lawsuits over illegal or unfair employment practices, denying insurance claims, and excluding themselves from the chain of liability normally provided by other transportation entities. These rideshare companies tout the superior quality of their services when speaking to the public but then brazenly write language in their contracts that they are not responsible for the actions of their contractors, the quality of service provided, or any of the risks taken by passengers, drivers, or the public. In the hammer wielding example above, ride share company Uber referred to the agreement that the injured passenger approved when signing up for the service. "YOU EXPRESSLY WAIVE AND RELEASE THE COMPANY FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, CLAIMS OR DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER."

Some of these points are examples of bad policies and practices on the part of the new disruptors, but other points dispel the myth of responsible happy citizen drivers willingly putting their vehicles on the road for easy money. It is clear that the use of personal vehicles by an unsophisticated or inexperienced driving staff operating outside of the umbrella of supervision puts the both the expense and control of the service into the wrong hands and cannot be sustained.

So how do we deal with the surge issue? I propose that we close the gap between taxi and limousine services. In many cities, regulations are put into effect with the goal of protecting the number of taxis competing for work. These regulations make sure that other transportation providers like airport shuttles and limousines cannot pick up passengers that flag them on the street. Other regulations impose an expensive minimum fare, long length of service, or require the vehicle to return to the garage between every single ride. If transportation applications can display both available taxis and networked limousines at the same time and display the price differential, then the market can police itself, allowing needy passengers to use the higher cost limousine services when cheaper taxis are all taken. Limousine companies are not limited in size or number of vehicles and can respond by fielding the vehicles when many of these surge periods occur, like special events, rush hour and bar closing time. This way vetted drivers and supervised vehicles perform the work so that the risks and costs are born by the companies fielding the cars and willing to accept the risks.

How do we get the ball rolling? Well, the new "ridesharing" companies have broken the trail, providing geolocation, driver and customer reviews, rudimentary disciplinary procedures, anticipated charges, credit card billing, etc. But to create a truly level playing field, these models should be specified by the governing authorities whose mandate is to protect passengers, drivers and the general public.

Maybe a large city could issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) with the following stipulations:
· Fair employment standards for drivers. Minimum wage, workers compensation, etc.
· Adequate insurance for passengers, drivers and the public. Set these standards in cooperation with State insurance commissioners and representatives of the insurance industry to make sure durable and usable insurance exists for all. 
• Carriers must also take responsibility for the actions of their drivers and passengers.
· Geolocation data of all vehicles shared with governing authorities.
· Credit card processing guaranteed for all passengers. No more "broken credit card machine" excuses.
· Registered passenger profiles, like the current rideshare organizations have.
· Drive to pickup location fees. Lower price for street hails and more money for app based or telephone based orders.
· Driver rating system.
• Passenger rating system.
· Web based driver/company rating and complaint system.
· Rapid municipal response to complaints.
· Regulatory driver monitoring, tickets, accidents, customer complaints, but with real teeth. Drivers must be penalized for their unprofessional or risky behavior. This will cost municipalities in overhead, field staff etc.

Let the taxi industry or equipment/software provider respond to the request for the software/hardware solution. Or let the current ride share companies morph into a responsible model with cities and states setting the bar. If one city can set the standard with their RFP and make it work, other cities might step on board, resulting in a nationwide network that travelers can use regardless of which city they're in. This is not much of a stretch as it may seem. Most limousine and taxi software already incorporates many of these features, but only the municipalities can make it a requirement.

Transportation is becoming a major factor in modern urban planning, with climate change, air quality, living standards, and business attraction all being part of the urban mobility equation. Cities like Portland Oregon and San Jose California have added light rail to the urban transportation mix. Others are fostering car sharing and bicycle sharing, integrated transit passes and company shuttles. Smart use of taxis can limit needless driving in search of fares, reduce car ownership, parking and garaging space, ease congestion and limit pollution. If we turn our back on regulation, then we drive a wedge of social division between the wealthy tech oriented share ride users and the handicapped, disabled, and poor that rely on taxis to take them to and from home and the doctor or market. We also solidify a system that exploits the desperation of immigrants and post recession job seekers anxious to find any meager source of income. If we let the regulators win, then we lose the opportunity to advance an industry, advance society and tune our cities to deal with the coming issues of urban density, climate change and the declining standard of living.

Who is this regulatory/municipal/state "Steve Jobs"? We should probably look to cities that believe they have a current taxi problem that needs to be fixed now. Major metropolitan cities come to mind like New York, Washington DC, Chicago or San Francisco. Then we need a forward looking authority, maybe a progressive mayor like Chicago's Rahm Emanuel, or San Francisco's Ed Lee. Unfortunately, the relationships between many major taxi companies and their respective taxi authorities have been too cozy over the last few years. The likelihood of taxi authorities accepting the large reform task, then bearing the risk of potentially increased administration costs, and receiving the anger of the taxi firms that will inevitably have to make very uncomfortable changes, puts these authorities at the bottom of the candidate list.

America's state based political structure is a double-edged sword, with diverse geopolitical schemes across states and cities. While allowing for the flexibility to create laws and standards that meet local needs, they create a hurdle to scaling a uniform transit solution across the nation. In Europe, many of these issues have been solved with new municipal or nationwide rules that allow existing, and new companies as well, to provide taxi service with many of the features and benefits that America's "ridesharing" companies have. New national standards in Germany and the UK have allowed taxi and limousine services to add these features while still meeting government standards about safety and transparency.

A recent conference of mayors held in Sacramento heard a presentation by Travis Kalanick, president of Uber, the ride sharing firm. His message to the mayors in attendance was "get onboard and allow these new services or get out of the way." The proper response to private entities wanting to usurp governmental regulatory mandates is to create a modern framework that integrates current technological capacities with the intended purpose of creating a transparent, durable transportation system that is more equitable and safe for drivers, passengers and the general public. We can look to Europe and elsewhere for examples, but new ground must be broken.

Once a single major city succeeds at setting a fair standard, then others will come on board, creating a nationwide entity that will be on smart devices for use in all cities._


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

KevinH said:


> Part 2:
> 
> _The other aspect that the web provides is branding for taxi firms. Most users are unaware and do not care about the differences between taxi companies; they rely on the nearest cab and hope for a good experience. Mobile applications will identify both company and driver and provide public ratings similar to Yelp on quality of drivers, cars and billing. Once provided with this feedback, cab companies can begin to fine tune their organizations for excellence, differentiate themselves and market their quality and reputation as customers will be given a choice when a mobile app displays multiple firms & drivers and their ratings.
> 
> ...


Could you provide the links to these installments?


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Carbuncle said:


> Could you provide the links to these installments?


Woops, copied from Google+ Not LinkedIn. Google Plus closed last month. Sorry. Can send you the whole text in a DM.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

KevinH said:


> Woops, copied from Google+ Not LinkedIn. Google Plus closed last month. Sorry. Can send you the whole text in a DM.


No worries. I'll just email this thread to myself.


----------



## K girl 213 (Aug 20, 2015)

NotanEmployee said:


> Your issue is that you arent being paid a fair WAGE. What you fail to understand that you are not paid a WAGE at all. You are not an employee. You are paid a contracted amount that you agreed to. This is not a wage and if you disagree with the contract you can say no and not take the contract.
> 
> Ex. Someone wants to hire you to drive their car across country for $200. You can say yes or no. Thats the contract they are offering, its your choice if you are willing to do that. Some will take that contract because they want to go there and not pay airfare or bus fare. The extra $200 looks great to them! Others say hell no! My time is more valuable! If uber doesnt provide you with the amount you want then cancel the contract and get a job as an EMPLOYEE with a guaranteed wage. Business is business and nobody guaranteed that any business would be profitable. If i lived in an area where uber pays $0.60 per mile and $0.05 per minute, i WOULD NOT STEP FOOT IN MY CAR. As simple as that. If the complainers all quit then uber would be forced to raise rates in that area. Aparently there are enough drivers that think that rate is good enough for them. Let them do it while you get a job a McDs with guaranteed minimum wage.


While I really appreciate these opinions 
However that is not how labor law works. 
Often times I wish it as simple as the above.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> As usual, total bunkum. My way of thinking does not harm or benefit Uber in any way. I could think like a 16th century renaissance painter and my thoughts would equally have no impact whatsoever.
> 
> And why would any driver want to hurt Uber? If Uber fails then that would be one fewer option for earning money.


He's an angry Lyft driver. I think the main reason he hates Uber so much is because they kicked him off their network which has inspired his bizarre posts about taking down Uber.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

No Prisoners said:


> While I don't agree with any government or court intervention, what I'm aiming for is delusion of market value. All these rulings strikes, scandals, losses, IPO filing full artificial and baseless projections, negatively influence investors perception. Wallstreet hates uncertainty.
> You want to hurt uber, stop thinking like a driver, but rather as a banker and investor.
> That's what I want and it's working.


Your hatred towards Uber is pure evil and sick! ?


----------



## GreatOrchid (Apr 9, 2019)

hahaha go back to old rates he needs a martian time travel device thats the ticket


----------



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

Carbuncle said:


> The best thing for drivers is for these jerks to collapse so that the industry can have more options and be better regulated.


I see no evidence to support the belief that whatever companies may come after Uber in the event of its collapse would be any better for drivers than Uber.

I also see no evidence that the regulatory bodies would suddenly clamp down on the rideshare industry principals following a failure of Uber.

What evidence do you have for any of this?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence to support the belief that whatever companies may come after Uber in the event of its collapse would be any better for drivers than Uber.
> the
> I also see no evidence that the regulatory bodies would suddenly clamp down on the rideshare industry principals following a failure of Uber.
> 
> What evidence do you have for any of this?


NYC, Canada, and Europe, among others, regulate TNC and drivers do much better than those in nearly every US market.

Regulations are coming. A floor will be reestablished that ensures better pay.

The conversations are being had.

Thousands of homeless Uber drivers won't last.

I suggest you read up on the history of the cab and for-hire driver industry. The answers you're looking for are there.

There's more competition in regulated markets. Regulations are the only thing that can prevent monopolies.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence to support the belief that whatever companies may come after Uber in the event of its collapse would be any better for drivers than Uber.
> 
> I also see no evidence that the regulatory bodies would suddenly clamp down on the rideshare industry principals following a failure of Uber.
> 
> What evidence do you have for any of this?


Here is another example from recent news. UberX is banned in Japan, so advanced taxi apps and smart devices in cabs are being implemented. Sony is the latest participant.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/16/sony-s-ride-taxi-hailing-service-tokyo/

Many companies in Africa, Far East and Europe are applying similar technology and providing accountability, better pay for drivers, etc. But most of those efforts are in countries that ban Uber and similar business models. Uber/Lyft's reliance on below cost marketing subsidized by investors and worker exploitation have kept similar advances from happening in the U.S.

Also, changing regulations in California, New York and Connecticut are being echoed in Canada, Brazil and the UK. I believe 2019 will be the year things really begin to change.

Here is a comment following a Forrester Research report from a couple of years ago:
*UBER DOES NOT FOSTER INNOVATION BUT RATHER HINDERS IT!*
Instead of fighting a battle with Uber, municipalities, state and national regulators need to step "over" Uber. They need to embrace game changing technology but also ensure that the new transportation models bring benefits to drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and that they include big picture thinking for an increasingly "urbanized" planet.

First of all, Forrester Research is no "industry expert." It is a polling and statistics aggregator, as well as a prognosticator, but has no credentials to classify Uber's business model.

Let's get a couple of things straight here: First of all, let's do away with the term "ride-sharing." Although the service model has many innovations and provides needed value, passengers are not sharing a destination in the same fashion as car pooling or cooperative van services. They are providing taxi service in personal cars driven by "citizen chauffeurs" who specifically take to the road to work for financial gain. The Associated Press is on to this disinformation fluff and has banned the use of the term "ride-sharing" in its news items.

Uber is certainly disruptive to a stodgy and antiquated service industry. In many parts of the world there is collusion between regulators and taxi firms that deprives drivers of fair wages and also results in extremely poor transportation service. These relationships need to be expunged from urban transportation models and replaced with honest, transparent and technologically advanced service models. For all the bad that Uber is, it has at least shined a light on this dark segment of government neglect and abuse.

The core problem with most taxi services in the US and many other countries is their employment model. The dominant employment model is to declare the drivers as an independent contractors who just "rent" the cars for their work shifts. This deprives drivers of many of the benefits that most workers in the developed world enjoy, such as compensation for work-related injuries, fair employment practices, and other societal safety nets. For this model to function, the taxi firms must not interfere in the details of how the driver performs the service. Otherwise, their supervisory actions invalidate the independent contractor classification. This holds costs down but leaves the service model wide open for neglect and abuse. Uber, Lyft and others add supervisory functions that up the standards of service, and in doing so they invalidate the independent contractor model and significantly raise costs. Uber's disingenuous pouffe is that the drivers that it controls and sets service standards for are still independent contractors. This misclassification will get sorted out in courts and will likely invalidate Uber's service model in many of its markets, but will take years to litigate.

This in a nutshell is the essential quandary that has hobbled the taxi industry for decades. It is a problem that must be solved and Uber's misinformation, disinformation, disingenuous negotiations and lies only postpones the overhauling. They delay the necessary application of further innovations and also the messy business of creating new regulatory models. Uber's approach to this dilemma is to shove the debate into the ditch of protracted litigation.

For instance, a service model that makes the taxi brand and driver rating visible to customers would let the quality services float to the top and still keep the drivers relations with the service companies unchanged. This Airbnb sort of rating would not be as direct as the rating systems and termination policies that the networking companies currently have in place but would bring the best of both worlds together. Just an example of an idea that might move the industry forward but remains off-stage because of Uber's current competitive advantages.

As we see in the above article, countries that take a proactive role in re-doing their service models do indeed foster next-generation e-hailing services that provide fair compensation to drivers, embrace true safety practices, are transparent in their conduct, and share their operational data with urban planners. In the US, where Uber has cajoled local regulators to allow them to operate without these benefits, next generation innovators cannot compete with this phony business model that cheats their drivers, endangers the public through tricky insurance scams and hides the social impact of their practices.

Governments can permit Uber, stop Uber or step over Uber. I prefer the latter.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

KevinH said:


> Here is another example from recent news. UberX is banned in Japan, so advanced taxi apps and smart devices in cabs are being implemented. Sony is the latest participant.
> 
> https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/16/sony-s-ride-taxi-hailing-service-tokyo/
> 
> ...


Do you have a link to the Forrester report?


----------



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

Carbuncle said:


> The answers you're looking for are there.


I see that the answer to the specific question I asked you certainly was not in your reply. Just as I thought.


----------



## rubisgsa (Jul 3, 2018)

i think the open source software community should pick this up they could make something that helps drivers and passengers and communities

OPENSOURCE 22ND CENTURY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION


----------



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

KK2929 said:


> Don't become an intellectual bully because you feel your stature is above ours.


In order to be an intellectual bully, intellect would be required. The pomposity and delusions of grandeur of the individual in question are no substitute.



KevinH said:


> Instead of fighting a battle with Uber, municipalities, state and national regulators need to step "over" Uber. They need to embrace game changing technology but also ensure that the new transportation models bring benefits to drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and that they include big picture thinking for an increasingly "urbanized" planet.


This, to me, sounds like a presidential election campaign speech. "Benefits for all, new way of doing things" etc, but light on the details of how to achieve the goals.

And unless one wants to end up with 42 being the answer, one has to outline what the problems to be solved actually are. The only one that interests me is driver welfare and wellbeing. I'm not interested in "crushing Uber" or "making them pay" etc etc. I'm not interested in how much their executives earn or how much they make from the IPO.

To this end, what I would like to see is the banning of fake independent contractor contracts. I like California's new method of deciding whether or not workers are employees or ICs. The banning of these contracts would make UberLyft and all of the other "gig" companies decide to either classify their workers as employees with full benefits, or genuine ICs with the corresponding abilities to set their own prices and other service provisions of service. At the moment, obviously, UberLyft et al reap the best of both worlds with heavy employer-type control over workers but with almost none of the related obligations.



goneubering said:


> The shortest version is he claims he invented a digital system which will take down Uber. He's been posing as someone with great power and behind the scenes influence from FL but he's most likely just an angry Lyft driver from Cali. Zero proof for any of his big boasting.


What would UP.net be without its fruitcakes, though, lol? Remember Glados? Whatever happened to him?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see that the answer to the specific question I asked you certainly was not in your reply. Just as I thought.


You're lazy. I did my homework on my own. I'm not doing yours for you. You have google. USE IT.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

I have always suspected that Uber schilling have been on these boards, what I didn’t think was that they are stoned when promoting Uber’s underhanded tactics. Uber management Must be smoking some great zhyt.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> And why would any driver want to hurt Uber? If Uber fails then that would be one fewer option for earning money.


Haha wuuuuut? As a driver, it is my goal to destroy Uber as fast as possible. New and better companies will replace them in 2 nanoseconds.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

rubisgsa said:


> i think the open source software community should pick this up they could make something that helps drivers and passengers and communities
> 
> OPENSOURCE 22ND CENTURY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION


Open source has serious limitations, especially in industries with significant public safety concerns. Transportation has to be regulated. A pure open source opens the floodgates for too many bad actors - and simply stupid people - to screw things up for everyone. A minimum floor was established long ago to prevent lowballers from undercutting responsible drivers and putting riders and the general public at risk.

Most industries have to have certain basic regulations and enforced standards. Without them the nation goes the way of Brazil and other really screwed up places.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

UberAdrian said:


> Haha wuuuuut? As a driver, it is my goal to destroy Uber as fast as possible. New and better companies will replace them in 2 nanoseconds.


Nobody's going to destroy Uber especially not drivers. It's amazing some of the wild ideas I see posted here.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Nobody's going to destroy Uber especially not drivers. It's amazing some of the wild ideas I see posted here.


Uber is doing that all on there own.

Driver attrition is certainly doing a lot of harm.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Carbuncle said:


> Do you have a link to the Forrester report?


It was from about 2015-2016 and I did not keep a link nor can I find it in a search.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> What would UP.net be without its fruitcakes, though, lol? Remember Glados? Whatever happened to him?


I don't remember Glados. He may have posted before I joined.


----------



## rubisgsa (Jul 3, 2018)

lawsuits are how things are changed!


----------



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

Carbuncle said:


> You're lazy. I did my homework on my own. I'm not doing yours for you. You have google. USE IT.


No, that's not the way this works. I asked you to back up what you claimed with evidence. So far you have been unable to do so.

I therefore conclude that your claims are baseless.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, I asked you to back up what you claimed with evidence. So far you have been unable to do so.
> 
> I therefore conclude that your claims are baseless.


I don't care about anything you have to say on any topic. You're lazy. And a troll. You also suck at gaslighting.

You've got google. You can easily find what you're looking for.

But you won't because you're lazy.


----------



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

Carbuncle said:


> I don't care about anything you have to say on any topic. You're lazy. And a troll. You also suck at gaslighting.
> 
> You've got google. You can easily find what you're looking for.
> 
> But you won't because you're lazy.


*Sigh*

Just as I thought. Runs out of ideas and has nothing left in the toolbox to draw from but personal insult. All too common, unfortunately.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Just as I thought. Runs out of ideas and has nothing left in the toolbox to draw from but personal insult. All too common, unfortunately.


You're a joke.

But we're all laughing _at _you.


----------



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

Carbuncle said:


> You're a joke.
> 
> But we're all laughing _at _you.


I see you confirm that you have no further contributions to the discussion other than personal insult. As such, there's no point in replying to you further. Onto the ignore list you go.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see you confirm that you have no further contributions to the discussion other than personal insult. As such, there's no point in replying to you further. Onto the ignore list you go.


That's obviously an honorable list to be on.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

So yesterday..

Was out in a wheelchair taxi (with a ramp)

My costs were about $20 higher (gas costs alone) with the same rental fee.

(had 2 "wheelchair" fares)
Passenger had one of these (same woman twice, scheduled a return trip after dropping her off the first time) she tipped 100% by the way.









I also could not take fares that a similar vehicle without the ramp could take (as i was limited to 4 passengers in a Sienna)

If the cab company can field wheelchair taxis why can't uber?

What's uber's rationale for refusing to get wheelchair taxis (Uber isn't a taxi but IDFK) onto their platform?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> So yesterday..
> 
> Was out in a wheelchair taxi (with a ramp)
> 
> ...


For what drivers are paid you can't be serious.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Do you have a link to the Forrester report?


At bottom of page

Here's a great one just on time for IPO.

Swiss court declares driver an Uber employee - FRANCE 24 https://t.co/9xHrFUNCnQ


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

No Prisoners said:


> At bottom of page
> 
> Here's a great one just on time for IPO.
> 
> Swiss court declares driver an Uber employee - FRANCE 24 https://t.co/9xHrFUNCnQ


Yup.

LA and OC counties combined account for more than a third of the state's combined GDP. Yet we have massive poverty and homelessness, immensely expensive health care, terrible wages relative to COL, a crumbling infrastructure, massive labor abuse issues, lunatic rents, and more.

There are no excuses at all for this.

Uber alone proves how utterly corrupt CA Democrats are. Kamala Harris's brother-in-law is Tony West and that jerk worked under Obama. He's been Uber's chief legal advisor and senior VP of operations a couple years now. Shervin Pishevar was an Obama appointee. David Plouffe worked for Obama as a campaign strategist. Bradley Tusk worked under Michael Bloomberg and he's one of the main reasons we get paid so poorly and why Uber got away with so much.

No one has greased Uber's wheels as much as Democrats. Although Hillary was one of the first to mention the need to regulate Uber and big tech. Only the few progressives like AOC, Warren, Robert Reich, Sanders, and Yang seem to be banging that drum as well.


----------



## No Prisoners (Mar 21, 2019)

This is landmark decision and news out at worst possible time for Uber's IPO.

Swiss court declares driver an Uber employee - FRANCE 24 https://t.co/9xHrFUNCnQ


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Carbuncle said:


> For what drivers are paid you can't be serious.


Uber drivers make $90,000 a year !

didn't you know?

All the pay BS that uber has flouted over the years will be used against them in this.

Every case against cab companies with them making the exact same arguments has been lost and the cab companies have caved in and bought wheelchair vans.

Every..

Single..

one..

This is what the ADA has accomplished with taxis, trust me when i say this.. the ADA won't stand for uber getting away with not having these options. They would rather completely bring down uber/lyft than let them get away with it. If taxis can do it why not uber?










And by the way, a great many wheelchair taxis are paid for (or subsidized) using ADA GRANTS.

One way that uber/lyft could get into compliance is applying for an ADA grant to buy X,000 vehicles then employing drivers to operate them around the clock. (or renting them out to drivers as a way of getting drivers without cars into vehicles)

It doesn't HAVE to be a money costing operation.

Mears taxi gets a great deal of medical account fares every day (i had over 10 monday) that having a fleet of wheelchair accessible vans would make them much easier to get.

The other way would be to partner with transportation companies and subidize the difference in price. (they can't charge more for ADA services even if it costs more) Or just charge taxi rates for everything, the price difference is evaporating anyway.

They have been fighting these lawsuits for years, and the taxi companies fought them for years.

The mere fact that the taxi companies already lost is case law that WILL be used against uber/lyft.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber drivers make $90,000 a year !
> 
> didn't you know?
> 
> ...


I've contacted ADA reps and advocates several times and explained that drivers aren't opposed to offering services so long as we're paid an amount commensurate with offsetting the massively increased costs that accompany doing so.

I was not treated kindly.

Americans have become so ugly towards one another.

Maybe a civil war is needed to bring everyone back to reality.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber drivers make $90,000 a year !
> 
> didn't you know?
> 
> ...


 Hahahahahahahah HA!!

The law? You stop making me laugh now! Uber will payoff whoever they have to through the back door like they always do and any concerns over the "law" will evaporate.

They've already violated hundreds of laws around the world and are getting away with it. Why would they stop now?

Other than that you raise a good point.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

UberAdrian said:


> Hahahahahahahah HA!!
> 
> The law? You stop making me laugh now! Uber will payoff whoever they have to through the back door like they always do and any concerns over the "law" will evaporate.
> 
> ...


Bradley Tusk and Tony West (among others) are both Democrats and fixers for Uber.

Make no mistake, Democrats are #1 at greasing Uber's wheels.

As long as Americans keep voting in business a-holes instead of candidates with proven records of civil service and advocating for workers, small business, and the middle class nothing changes.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

No Prisoners said:


> Wish I could. Partners in Seattle this week negotiating architecture. Trying to rush for press releases IPO date.
> If it works out on time I will give this forum first look at it.
> 
> All my threads and post are followed by "show ignored content" box. Evidently someone I've designated "ignored" has such an interest on me that has the need to ghost me. Poor miserable life these persons must live. Wonder how their own mothers feel about them now. Bet they regret no abortion. Imagine having that kind of scum as a child. Most likely they're living in their cars or trailer homes.
> Forgive them Lord as they don't know better.


I call BS on this. Someone you ignore responds to a post and that is your response? I am going with you are in your mothers basement and need attention. Good luck with the tin foil hats and koolaid.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> I call BS on this. Someone you ignore responds to a post and that is your response? I am going with you are in your mothers basement and need attention. Good luck with the tin foil hats and koolaid.


He hates Uber. He thinks attacking them will make him an international hero to drivers but his claims about a secret that could make $24 billion for Uber is laughable. Then he further embarrassed himself by forgetting his previous post and raising his ridiculous claim to $26 billion net. He's a joke pretending to be a big investor with all these important contacts.


----------

