Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 348 posts

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#181

Post by dnautics »

seertaak wrote: post #46

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to…

> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral.

It's definitely illegal. It's not immoral to film it necessarily, it is maybe immoral to release it without permission. But at some point you have to admit that it becomes "public interest" to leak information, even if it transgresses those moral standards. As an extreme example, if you had managed to covertly film Kim Jong Un, giving insight into the inner workings of the hermit kingdom, would it be immoral to make it public?

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#182

Post by thaumasiotes »

harryh wrote: post #91
nradov wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all should pay for the worker's social safety net. That shouldn't be dependant on a worker's employer, or even employment status. In the US, tying health insurance to employers was one of the worst public policy mistakes we ever made.

Not only is it tied to employers, it's subsidized! If a company gives you $1 in salary you pay taxes on that dollar. If it gives you $1 of health insurance it's tax free. It's madness.

It's tied to employers because it's subsidized if you get it that way. That's the whole tie.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#183

Post by acchow »

seertaak wrote: post #46

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to…

"I lost $97,000 because of you."

This is exactly how entrepreneurship works - you take risks, sometimes enormous risks with huge capital investments, and it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does work out and you reap great rewards for a long time.

The driver signed up for this and the gamble didn't work out... now he's blaming Uber?

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#184

Post by rhizome »

Cookingboy wrote: post #87
timthelion wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, To me this is a very classist oppinion. Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have? If we promote this case due to the expectation of privacy th…

"Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have?" What are you talking about? Normal, non-rich people totally have the same expectation of privacy when they take a cab. Would YOU be ok if your cab driver film…

Would YOU be ok if your cab driver films you without any knowledge?

Most taxis I've been in the past, oh, let's say 15 years, have had interior/passenger cams.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#185

Post by matt4077 »

dragontamer wrote: post #169
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where else should he grind it? Kalanick is the CEO. He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. Kalanick certainly gets paid enough to face up to people like this. And if he wants to stop facing up to it, maybe he can do something about their pay.

> Kalanick is the CEO. And the driver is not an employee. Yeah, I know this has been discussed a lot of times, but the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. And indeed: the loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. Its just the nature of h…

> the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation.

Except, you know, "being a human"

> loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company.

That's actually not that different from being an employee, where you can usually quit on short notice and start working somewhere else as well – at least on the lower end of the market.

But it's wrong to consider these relationships as symmetrical in terms of power. Uber (or any employer) has vastly more power over an individual driver than the other way around. That's because loss of the gig can mean financial ruin for the driver, but the company wouldn't even notice it.

That's why unions are needed to create a balance of power.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#186

Post by nichochar »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #16

To me this illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in america which is the crazy firewall between rich and poor. Kamel wanted to have a serious discussion with Kalanick about how his decisions as CEO were affecting Kamel's life and Kalanick gets upset about this. That's your job! At least it should be. If you can't even handle light criticism from the people you employ, you shouldn't be at the top.

How is that his job? Stop being a silicon valley hippie for a second and think about how realistic that is.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#187

Post by acchow »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #25

How is this video not illegal, especially in California? And sure rates went down, but it's still 3X the price of UberX. It didn't go down precipitously. From $4.90/1.25 to 3.75/0.65 won't cause someone to lose $97k and probably he got more activity overall. I agree with the CEO that this guy sounds like he's blaming Uber for his problems, when there are plenty of UberBlack drivers making hand over fist otherwise the…

> From $4.90/1.25 to 3.75/0.65 won't cause someone to lose $97k

The driver probably bought a few cars and runs a "small business" over Uber. He had dreams of making big money fast. It didn't pan out.

I understand the anger and frustration, but not the placement of blame.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#189

Post by LargeCompanies »

seertaak wrote: post #46

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to…

The CEO of Uber is a public figure and has as much right to privacy as he gave Sarah Lacy whom he let Uber stalk her and family for a negative article.

He is a ruthless, greedy, ignoramus, misogynistic pig who needs his ass handed to him and Uber to crumble before his eyes!

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#190

Post by harryh »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #182
harryh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is it tied to employers, it's subsidized! If a company gives you $1 in salary you pay taxes on that dollar. If it gives you $1 of health insurance it's tax free. It's madness.

It's tied to employers because it's subsidized if you get it that way. That's the whole tie.

The subsidy is important, but being in a risk pool is also very important.
Post reply on HN