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

251–260 of 348 posts

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

#251

Post by st3v3r »

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…

"there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation."

Considering that, without the drivers, Uber doesn't have a product, I cannot agree with that statement.

"Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?"

For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. But given the news recently, that's far too much for anyone to expect.

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

#252

Post by chickenfries »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #117
chickenfries wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, that would be interesting, as my conversations are not usually relevant to the readers of bloomberg. I might not be happy about it, but I'm not sure that a law was broken or that I would have any recourse...

Nobody is saying a law was broken. That doesn't make it right. Clearly you would not be happy about it either. I think the interesting part of this story is not Kalanick's character based on the video, but rather the business decisions Uber made and how that has impacted their drivers. It appears Uber has benefited from people investing in fancy cars. If it was their business plan to mislead people into doing that an…

Whether I would be happy about it or not does not make it right either. My unpopular opinion is that this video is in the public interest and that matters more than whether or not the CEO of Uber is happy about it or feels like their privacy was violated.

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

#253

Post by pjwal »

st3v3r wrote: post #242
pjwal wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair enough and I see that point. My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets. I think Uber and its drivers found itself in a situation with falling demand amidst rising competition.

"My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets." Even when said "free markets" cause people extreme hardship?

Is there another system you know in which no one has experienced "extreme hardship?" Are you saying the driver in this article is an example of that?

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

#254

Post by st3v3r »

xapata wrote: post #111
rockarage wrote: post #44

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 off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X…

> reject Uber rides ... kick off the system I believe it simply sets you to inactive temporarily, because you're obviously not picking up rides and you're slowing down the rider matching process.

Which is absolutely wrong. They're deciding, as a contractor, to not take jobs which are not worth their time. As a contractor, they're supposed to be able to do that without punishment. If Uber is doing this, it is a punishment.

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

#255

Post by metafunctor »

praneshp wrote: post #200
martinald wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bizarre way of looking at it. There's vastly more economy class passengers on a plane; but it doesn't mean that first or business passengers don't exist. You are right that some drivers going bankrupt is how the market would correct, but forcing them to take uberx fares at below cost is a dreadful idea and definitely not free market economics. If anything, it's like a govt regulation that requires businesses t…

Im not disagreeing, can you explain why (or point me to reading material)? If customers aren't traveling business, won't the airline company either have to give away seats or keep them empty?

Uber is the plane, and drivers are the seats.

Uber works so that each seat (or pair, or row of seats) is operated by a single driver, mostly at their own personal risk – with the operator of the plane controlling a lot of the equation.

Normal airlines assume an aggregate risk of the entire demographic and seasonalities of air travel. If customers suddenly stop traveling business, the airline can do something about it (lower prices, improve service, better marketing, and so on). With the Uber model, there's not so much a single driver can do, but they carry a lot of the risk.

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

#256

Post by r00fus »

randyrand wrote: post #221
erdojo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure they still do this? I haven't gotten a Black Car for an X fare in several years. Used to be fairly common, now never. Before the Susan Fowler allegations, I was a 2-3x per day rider (I'm now mostly using Lyft).

Not all Lyft employees are saints either. I'm worried when the next Lyft scandel happens, ill have no good taxi options.

There is that. I have a taxi driver who's super awesome and I call him for airport rides.

However a) I can't just call him adhoc b) he's good so he's busy. So sometimes I don't get him. Then I just plan on a Lyft.

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

#257

Post by dkonofalski »

NTDF9 wrote: post #9

How can a driver lose $97000? Not asking in support/opposition of uber. Genuinely curious about what are some ways drivers could get into so much trouble?

He more than likely purchased multiple cars in order to run a business using the Uber infrastructure. He may even have family or friends involved as drivers. If he purchased a luxury car outright, he could also have dropped $97k just for that vehicle alone since Uber Black requires a certain type of vehicle in exchange for higher fare rates.

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

#258

Post by dkonofalski »

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?

Since you're technically hiring that person and their car to provide you a service, they have to disclose up-front if you're being recorded. In addition, just because you were being recorded doesn't mean the driver has the right to publicize the video. That requires additional consent unless it's a matter of public record.

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

#259

Post by dkonofalski »

mikeash wrote: post #244
dkonofalski wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not being forced to take unprofitable fares, though. They're being offered UberX customers when there are no Uber Black customers available. Whether or not they have the ability to change that priority is the question here. It seems that taking a slightly lower fare is better than taking no far at all at a higher rate.

If they refuse too many UberX fares, they'll be dumped. I'm sure Uber will argue that doesn't qualify as "forced," but it does to me.

That's not true with Uber Black. If you refuse an Uber X fare as an Uber Black driver, you're just marked as inactive temporarily (as you've declined a legitimate customer when there were no Uber Black customers). You can mark yourself as active again and take fares, but you are not forced to take Uber X fares as an Uber Black driver.

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

#260

Post by sedachv »

dkonofalski wrote: post #229
mikeash wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a properly functioning market, drivers would be going bankrupt due to not having enough fares, not by being forced to take unprofitable fares. If customers are voting with their wallets that they want more UberX and less Uber Black, then Uber Black drivers should be faced with a choice of chasing volume or margins, not forced to subsidize customers.

They're not being forced to take unprofitable fares, though. They're being offered UberX customers when there are no Uber Black customers available. Whether or not they have the ability to change that priority is the question here. It seems that taking a slightly lower fare is better than taking no far at all at a higher rate.

> It seems that taking a slightly lower fare is better than taking no far at all at a higher rate.

That is not how capitalism works. Uber drivers are responsible for both fixed and variable costs. The marginal revenue of a fare might be less than the marginal cost and the decision to accept a fare needs to be made by the driver. If Uber drivers do not have the ability to make revenue management decisions they cease to be contractors. Uber is misleading its drivers and the IRS by labeling its drivers as contractors and passing losses onto them.

Post reply on HN