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

Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#201

Post by Applejinx »

rbobby wrote: post #57

Uber's management team seems to stumble from one mistake/mess/self-inflicted-injury to another. I can't help but wonder why Uber VCs have kept them in place.

It's not unlike the Enron model. Uber is supported entirely by the collective opinion that they're a SV unicorn and the most ruthlessly profitable thing around.

If a vote of no confidence is issued by the Uber management team being fired, the valuation would collapse because it would be an admission that ultimate ruthlessness/evil/whatever you want to call it, does not automatically become ultimate profitability and capital return.

Of course the VCs have to double down. They have no choice but to conclude that Uber's behavior is a model for future business everywhere. It doesn't matter if it's an absurd conclusion: capital is literally at stake. Uber's valuation can only go up or burst. Everybody invested in it strongly prefer the 'go up' option.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#202

Post by accountyaccount »

aianus wrote: post #150
accountyaccount wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't give me this happy horseshit masquerading as philosophy, this isn't about what "laws" or "ethics" are — Uber is constantly treating their drivers, who are people, like garbage.

I'm a part-time Uber driver and I've never been treated like garbage by them. They pay me exactly what they say they'll pay me and on time. If I don't like the rate I'm earning, I turn it off and go home.

>I turn it off and go home.

A lot of people don't have that flexibility.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#203

Post by Applejinx »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #121

It never stops with this charming company, does it? This cavalcade of illegal and unethical behavior at Uber is what happens when the founder and untouchable CEO of a company is a bad person.

Define 'bad'. Or indeed 'ethical'. There's an awful lot of abstracted money around that sees (to the extent abstractions can see anything) Uber and its boss as the best thing ever, specifically because all the behavior is designed to increase money.

If all that energy was put towards a goal of tormenting red-headed pipe-fitters and their families, there's no way things would have gone on this long. But it's to increase money, so by definition UNTIL it fails and all the money is lost, it's not simply okay but admirable and to be emulated.

If the money buys immunity from any such accountability…

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#204

Post by nradov »

Jabanga wrote: post #169
nradov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public key cryptography wasn't illegal within the USA in the early 1990s. The legal issue was with exports.

Right. And the development of a global ecommerce market would have been severely hampered if the cypherpunks hadn't won the "crypto wars".

That's not really what happened. Lobbying by major tech companies such as IBM had a much greater impact on the regulatory changes than anything that the cypherpunks did.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#205

Post by burkaman »

Karunamon wrote: post #182
burkaman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand, but your initial attitude should be "let's try to work within society's boundaries to achieve our goal", not "what can I break". There are certainly cases where laws are outdated or wrong, and breaking them is the most efficient and harmless way to get them changed. I'm just saying "move fast and break things" is not the only way to succeed, should not be a goal in and of itself, and Uber could have bee…

but your initial attitude should be "let's try to work within society's boundaries to achieve our goal" Why on earth is that the case? This viewpoint imbues "society's boundaries" with some kind of a-priori correctness, when really it has the same as any other concept: 0, until proven otherwise.

It's not a-priori correctness, but a-priori precedence, or respect. You live in a society, you benefit from society, you would not be capable of starting a business without society, so you shouldn't casually dismiss society. Basically all I'm saying is that you need a good reason to break the rules. "This makes it harder for me to make money" is not a good reason. "There's no other way to achieve my worthwhile goal" is a good reason.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#206

Post by NelsonMinar »

Applejinx wrote: post #203
NelsonMinar wrote: post #121

It never stops with this charming company, does it? This cavalcade of illegal and unethical behavior at Uber is what happens when the founder and untouchable CEO of a company is a bad person.

Define 'bad'. Or indeed 'ethical'. There's an awful lot of abstracted money around that sees (to the extent abstractions can see anything) Uber and its boss as the best thing ever, specifically because all the behavior is designed to increase money. If all that energy was put towards a goal of tormenting red-headed pipe-fitters and their families, there's no way things would have gone on this long. But it's to increa…

I used to work at Google in the "Don't be evil" era. We had many internal discussions about how it was hard to define "evil". That's part of the purpose of the deliberately ambiguous statement, to state a general principle without getting bogged down in minutiae. The purpose of the guidance is to force people to have ethical discussions, not to answer the question.

Uber is going to collapse under the weight of all its illegal and unethical behavior. All that money is going to evaporate.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#207

Post by xadhominemx »

aetherson wrote: post #156
samstave wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly though, years ago when I heard on the radio that google gave Uber 1 billion in funding I loudly exclaimed to everyone in my tiny office "ah... they want to invest in self driving cars through Uber!" So yeah, there were plenty of people who were looking at that. I think they just didn't know how expensive that long con would wind up being

So, to be clear, you think that when Google gave Uber 250M in funding (not 1B), in 2013, when Google had without-a-doubt the most advanced driverless car program in the world, and Uber was roughly two years away from beginning any driverless car program, Google made its investment in order to get into driverless cars? Huh.

People in the investment community were for sure talking about Uber and driverless cars in 2013. It was clear at the time Uber was going to have to make a buy vs. build decision. But it wasn't out of the question that Uber would become an early adopter and major customer of Google self-driving vehicles.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/

https://www.quora.com/Uber-in-2013-How-can-Uber-survive-driv...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/08/23/as-google-...

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#208

Post by aetherson »

xadhominemx wrote: post #207
aetherson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to be clear, you think that when Google gave Uber 250M in funding (not 1B), in 2013, when Google had without-a-doubt the most advanced driverless car program in the world, and Uber was roughly two years away from beginning any driverless car program, Google made its investment in order to get into driverless cars? Huh.

People in the investment community were for sure talking about Uber and driverless cars in 2013. It was clear at the time Uber was going to have to make a buy vs. build decision. But it wasn't out of the question that Uber would become an early adopter and major customer of Google self-driving vehicles. https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/ https://www.quora.com/Uber-in-2013-How-can-Uber-survive-driv... https:/…

I agree that one possible synergy at the time between Google and Uber was that Uber might use Google's driverless car technology.

That's very different from the revisionist rationale that Uber was always themselves making a long term play for driverless vehicles, or that Google got into Uber because Google wanted to invest in driverless vehicles.

The narrative at the time was that Uber was going to become a dominant rides-for-hire business (a real business, not a gaping wound hoping that technology would catch up to them) and at least a player in logistics, and then when driverless cars came along, everything would be even better for Uber.

You'll note that as that narrative was increasingly pounded into the dust, Google never invested further in Uber and relations between them have at this point obviously completely soured.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#209

Post by 0xB31B1B »

yeukhon wrote: post #165
aetherson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as negative as the next guy on Uber, and that's a great narrative, but they are losing vast quantities of money. Any dastardly deed that they do has to square itself with the fact that they are losing vast quantities of money. A predatory auto-loan company is not a $70B business.

I said this before, Uber should seriously consider closing down its operation in other countries. It is expanding virtually exponentially (they have a huge engineering team) for the type of company they are running. They need to focus on the U.S. market. They are losing way too much money everywhere combiend.

That's a very bold statement to make with zero knowledge of the financials.

Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers

#210

Post by xadhominemx »

aetherson wrote: post #208
xadhominemx wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the investment community were for sure talking about Uber and driverless cars in 2013. It was clear at the time Uber was going to have to make a buy vs. build decision. But it wasn't out of the question that Uber would become an early adopter and major customer of Google self-driving vehicles. https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/ https://www.quora.com/Uber-in-2013-How-can-Uber-survive-driv... https:/…

I agree that one possible synergy at the time between Google and Uber was that Uber might use Google's driverless car technology. That's very different from the revisionist rationale that Uber was always themselves making a long term play for driverless vehicles, or that Google got into Uber because Google wanted to invest in driverless vehicles. The narrative at the time was that Uber was going to become a dominant…

Uber's first massive round was in August 2013. By that time, everyone knew driverless cars were going to be critically important in the long term and Uber would have to make a build vs. buy decision. Whether Uber was ferrying passengers or goods didn't really impact this.

But yes, the investment thesis has always depended on passenger taxi being a decent business for Uber in the midterm.

Post reply on HN