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

311–320 of 348 posts

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

#311

Post by prostoalex »

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.

Simply? The driver never signed up for those rides in the first place.

Imagine being pitched an engineer job at an engineer salary with company later expanding into haircutting business and ducking your bonus for not generating enough haircuts.

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

#312

Post by prostoalex »

xapata wrote: post #287
st3v3r wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> punishment There's some balance between punishment and keeping the rider experience pleasant. I don't want to wait 10 minutes to get matched because of nearby lurking Uber Black cars passing on my Uber X request. If a driver ignores several requests in a row, they're clearly taking a break. It's a feature, not a punishment.

> don't want to wait 10 minutes to get matched because of nearby lurking Uber Black cars passing on my Uber X request.

Uber has a solution in place to deal with this, and it's surge pricing.

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

#313

Post by prostoalex »

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.

Self-employed individuals get to deduct health insurance https://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch06.html

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

#314

Post by prostoalex »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #174

That's funny Kalanick still thinks he's beaten Lyft. The TNC lot at LAX tells a much different story. I've been working it for Lyft since December. The lot has about 170 spaces. Lyft and Uber can each queue up 100 vehicles so some would have to park on streets. Before #deleteuber, I would come in with 90+ drivers ahead of me. I'd have to wait an hour. I would watch Uber drivers arrive after me and leave before me. An…

Lyft is always cheaper out of LAX for some reason. It's always some small amount, like 25-30c on a $45 fare, but quite consistent. My rides to LAX are usually a mishmash of providers, but rides out of LAX, when optimized for price, tend to be exclusively Lyft.

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

#315

Post by diegs »

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.

By that token, their drivers aren't charity workers either. If we put aside the inter-personal aspect of the video (which is contentious to say the least) this, to me, espouses the fundamental flaw in Uber's approach to their business: they have no respect for their workforce.

Unless they can get their self-driving cars working in time (which is another contentious subject), I suspect their eventual failure if it comes will be due to how they treat their drivers. Personally, I use Lyft because (a) in SF Lyft and Uber availability is more or less fungible and (b) I got tired of Uber drivers giving me an earful on how badly Uber treats them. Lyft drivers, in my experience (which is anecodtal, but I take at least 5 Lyfts per week and often 10+) are reasonably happy about their work. After the recent news I went ahead and deleted my Uber account, but that was an easy decision to make since I never use them anyway.

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

#316

Post by dopamean »

KirinDave wrote: post #282
ddrmaxgt37 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't California require 2 party consent? So all parties have to consent to the recording for it to be lawful. Which state laws are you reading?

2 party consent is the case when you're in a private space with someone else and have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is not an absolute thing. For example, a shoe cam to look up skirts doesn't fly just because you're in a public space.

I thought 2 party consent laws only dealt with audio recordings.

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

#317

Post by KirinDave »

dopamean wrote: post #316
KirinDave wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 party consent is the case when you're in a private space with someone else and have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is not an absolute thing. For example, a shoe cam to look up skirts doesn't fly just because you're in a public space.

I thought 2 party consent laws only dealt with audio recordings.

This varies by state.

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

#318

Post by xapata »

prostoalex wrote: post #312
xapata wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> punishment There's some balance between punishment and keeping the rider experience pleasant. I don't want to wait 10 minutes to get matched because of nearby lurking Uber Black cars passing on my Uber X request. If a driver ignores several requests in a row, they're clearly taking a break. It's a feature, not a punishment.

> don't want to wait 10 minutes to get matched because of nearby lurking Uber Black cars passing on my Uber X request. Uber has a solution in place to deal with this, and it's surge pricing.

I wonder if surge is activated by a lack of drivers or a lack of drivers who accept rides. My initial thought was that it was based on the number of active drivers, so making a driver inactive would take the pricing higher for the remaining drivers.

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

#319

Post by j-walker »

true_religion wrote: post #262
untog wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Let's keep in mind that Uber Black was meant to be a replacement for renting limousine by the hour.

WHAT?! How are the vehicles on this site even close to a limousine? http://uberestimate.com/what-is-uber-black/

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

#320

Post by xapata »

prostoalex wrote: post #311
xapata wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Simply? The driver never signed up for those rides in the first place. Imagine being pitched an engineer job at an engineer salary with company later expanding into haircutting business and ducking your bonus for not generating enough haircuts.

I've never been an Uber driver, but as far as I can tell from my conversations, they do indeed sign up.

My app sometimes says there are no Uber X available in my area, but 5 or 6 Uber Black. How could that be possible unless the Black were not automatically signed up for X?

Post reply on HN