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

261–270 of 348 posts

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

#261

Post by true_religion »

wybiral wrote: post #114
hsod wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think I would be okay with being filmed as long as it wasn't secret. Would you be OK with the video being published on a major news site?

News and paparazzi are kind of an unfortunate consequence of being a public figure. You're not in a private place in someone else's car...

Uber isn't even a public company. How did he become a public figure?

I think its unfair to say that simply by doing business with the general public, every CEO becomes a public figure.

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

#262

Post by true_religion »

untog wrote: post #235
computerex wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 custo…

Let's keep in mind that Uber Black was meant to be a replacement for renting limousine by the hour. It was meant to take something that used to be $135/hour with a 5 hour minimum, and turn it into $50 per 30 minute ride so limousine owners could profit off their spare time.

This is hardly something that is for the common man, and has little to do with self-driving cars or automation.

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

#263

Post by computerex »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #247
computerex wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.

>Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.

I don't think the actions are immoral. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. This is how capitalism works.

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

#264

Post by computerex »

st3v3r wrote: post #246
computerex wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was clearly off duty. Being the CEO of a company like Uber is very difficult indeed. Surely the guy doesn't have to answer to literally every single person he meets 24/7 because he is the CEO. He deserves no personal free time?

Bullshit. He gets paid the big bucks for exactly that.

He gets paid big bucks to lead a company like Uber and be held accountable by the board, not some random stranger. You seem to have some romanticized view of the world that's not congruent with reality.

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

#265

Post by true_religion »

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.

They get marked as inactive which they accept, and go back to their normal business of being a private limo service for the wealthy at $135/hour.

Uber Black in Washington D.C. is basically exclusively run by private limo operators driving Escalades. Owners of recent model $70,000+ cars are not your typical Uber driver, and do have other sources of income.

Almost every Uber black driver I've taken has handed me their card and proceeded to upsell me on their services outside of Uber.

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

#266

Post by SilasX »

Joky wrote: post #165
neaden wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but my understanding is that this sort of are claiming Uber drivers are employees vs. contractors. If they are contractors then they should be able to refuse rides from a different class freely and without any sort of punishment.

I'm following till "without any sort of punishment", there I'm lost. If I have a contract with a gardener that is servicing me for watering my yard, but then I also need to have my lawn mowed. If I ask him about providing this service and he declines, what's wrong with finding another gardener willing to provide the service I need?

In that specific case he might still be ruled a contractor, sure.

But if you expanded the list of duties to be sufficiently large and indefinite ("gardening and whatever else I need"), then a court might rule that you have created an employment relationship and are responsible for providing various other benefits.

So it would seem to favor the "employee" classification if Uber had a long history of "oh, and you also need to take these other requests ... oh, and support spotify integration now ... oh and you have to auto-accept requests before you're done with the current."

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

#267

Post by true_religion »

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.

Here's a comparison. With advertisement sales, often companies will say you must provide at least X impressions, even if we won't guarantee premium pricing for you.

Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, you'll get a high CPM (like Uber Black). Sometimes you'll get a low CPM (compare this to Uber X). Regardless, you have to do X amount of business with them or else they drop you.

Sometimes this means taking higher quality traffic (thus potentially higher CPM), and funnelling it to a certain advertiser at a lower rate simply to maintain your impression level.

That doesn't make web site owners, employees of ad companies even if they're solely dependant on a single ad company for their livelihood.

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

#268

Post by computerex »

untog wrote: post #235
computerex wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 custo…

Uber is not immune to societal change, they fully embrace this, like any company must if they want long term success.

Every corporation seeks to maximize profits. They may make investments, but every company expects a positive return on those investments in the long term.

I think we are responsible for our own actions. No one forced this driver to use Uber. Uber and Lyft always had very open relationship in the sense that drivers routinely double dipped in the pool without legal issues. There is absolutely no expectation that the terms under which the drivers are operating are set in stone and they aren't going to change in the future.

You have to look at things within the legal framework. $97k is a lot of money and people sue for much much less. That driver probably had no case at all.

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

#269

Post by acchow »

coralreef wrote: post #193
acchow wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I agree that you don't really have a right to complain when willfully you join a platform you don't control. But driving for Uber isn't entrepreneurship. You don't control your marketing, brand, you don't acquire your own customers, no control over price or business model, etc. Drivers are really just cogs in the service, provide a car, drive the routes, get paid.

I mean entrepreneurship assuming he lost $96,000 by buying a few cars and timesharing them out to other drivers... which is starting our own small business...

You can't "lose" $96,000 by being a driver...

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

#270

Post by true_religion »

timthelion wrote: post #75
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, 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…

You seem to be implying that only rich people can afford taxis, and thus its some exclusive service no "normal" people ever avail themselves of.

This isn't true, and even if it were---cabs are private spaces; that's what you're paying for. Subways, elevators, busses are shared public space.

Post reply on HN