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

231–240 of 348 posts

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

#231

Post by dkonofalski »

sedachv wrote: post #135
8ytecoder wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow as to why they have to accept Uber X requests. If there is less supply for Black cars, what's wrong with them sitting idle? What if they miss a request for a black car while they are driving their uber x customer around?

Forcing Black drivers to accept X requests invalidates any claims Uber has about their drivers being independent contractors instead of employees.

I think this is where the crux of the disagreement is. They can decline fares for UberX requests and I don't think it counts against them. Normal Uber drivers will get kicked off the system if they decline too many fares but I don't think that applies to Uber Black drivers that get shifted to UberX.

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

#232

Post by loeg »

koolba wrote: post #49
loeg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public. I don't know whether California is a two-party consent state, and the specifics of what that requires are different state to state anyway.

> Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public. If it was your car and someone got in and recorded you, then I'd say that's more clear cut. But if you get into someone else's car do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

If you go to someone's house, do you expect to be recorded there? I'm not a lawyer, in any case :-).

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

#233

Post by computerex »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #119
simplehuman wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you worked at a big company? In none of the fortune 500 companies have I met the CEO who has taken a minute to explain like Travis tried. In fact in some of the companies I worked for the CEO won't even respond to email.

I work for a gigantic corporation and you're right that the CEO wouldn't respond to me. In fact, if we were in a car together and I started talking to him about how my pay wasn't so hot this year I would expect him to be extremely uncomfortable. He should be! He makes huge decisions which affect thousands and thousands of lives. CEOs should be in constant contact with peons like me and Kamel. Maybe they would adjust…

Why don't you work really hard, become a CEO like him, then show us how you are in constant contact with peons such as how you used to be.

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

#235

Post by untog »

computerex wrote: post #222
untog wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the way Uber is set up means the costs from that adjustment are bourne entirely by the driver, who was probably advised by Uber to take our a lease on an expensive luxury car in order to pick up expensive fares. Bear in mind the start of this thread was discussing the driver being rude. You can call it "market forces" as much as you like, but if Uber is happy to sit back and let its drivers pay the price, i…

This is the free market. Uber Black is one thing, but you do know Uber is aggressively working towards autonomous vehicles, because Uber wants to provide transportation in the future, and not just now. A $69 billion dollar company must always be thinking of the long term if they want to stay relevant. Uber isn't a charity. I don't condone Uber's culture or whatever the CEO may or may not have done to create such a wo…

> Uber isn't a charity.

No, but it functions in a society, and shouldn't be under the mistaken belief that it is immune to societal change.

We can all agree that self-driving cars and automation in general are a positive technological development. But what if it results in mass unemployment? It's short sighted to say that Uber only has to seek to maximise profits - it also has an interest in there being a large customer base with money available to use their product. Presumably it would also prefer that those customers are not rioting and trashing vehicles in the street.

This is a mini version of that. Uber has screwed over this driver, and he is justifiably angry about it. "Well, we'd lose market share if we don't do it" is not a winning argument to anyone except other advantaged rich people.

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

#239

Post by dkonofalski »

Phlarp wrote: post #126
pjwal wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the driver didn't even know what the current Uber Black fair was...falsely claiming it was $2.75. Anyone would get annoyed when someone was telling you that you were essentially doing your job wrong but didn't even know the basic facts. In this case, these facts have a direct impact on the driver, which makes it all the more inane that he doesn't know them.

You seem really intent on defending Kalanick here so I will only post this as a reply to one of the several similar comments you've made regarding this: > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you o…

Are you certain that's the case? I was under the impression that, while this is true for the normal classes of Uber, the UberX fares for Uber Black drivers do not count against them if they reject the fare and UberX rides are only offered to them if there is not a current Uber Black fare available in the area.

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

#240

Post by LargeCompanies »

LargeCompanies wrote: post #189
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!

So those downvoting me think there is nothing wrong with having a reporter stalked, allowing your female employees to be treated like dogs... stealing your competitors IP... snubbing your nose at the law to put robot cars on the road that could kill people all for the sake of winning .. this and other horrible behavior is perfectly fine and that's why your downvoting me?
Post reply on HN