Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#571

Post by core-questions » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #526

aslfksdfl wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had Uber drivers pick me up and refuse to go to the part of the city I wanted to go to... complete pain in the ass (and also racist in this specific case). Uber offered me $5 for my trouble each time, which is... very Uber.

If the part of the city is unsafe (as some parts of some major cities are frequently nowdays) to the point the driver risks being assaulted by a mob, dragged out and beaten or shot, and their vehicle destroyed - I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to refuse such ride. No ride worth your life, and unless you're paying 1000x the Uber rates, no ride is worth your car ruined.

Amazing that you're downvoted. Are HN posters really so sheltered that they don't know that this is a reality in many major American cities? I'm sure it's in areas they never visit, for totally unspecified reasons, but it's real. There are areas (e.g. in Camden NJ) where the police will tell you to not stop your car for any reason, just get through and get out.

Pretending this isn't a reality or that it doesn't have an impact on someone driving for a living is pretty asinine.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#572

Post by WrongThinkerNo5 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #447

pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?

That is quite an abusive mentality to have. You would force someone to expose themselves to danger and the risk of violence and even death just so you could feel virtuous about yourself, while surely not at all exposing yourself to the same dangers you prescribe and force on others?

It's really a rather twisted mentality to have; like typical aristocratic supremacist types that demand the disposable peasants serve their wishes and whims. "Go to get robbed and shot by criminals and make your children orphans so I can feel virtuous about myself, peasant!" – Simulcra, 2020

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#573

Post by oldgradstudent » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

kingnothing wrote: post #367

kirykl wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

I used to work at Uber. I'll focus on one particular point: allowing drivers to see where riders are going before they accept the trip. Uber, at least when I worked there, was heavily against this functionality as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. That feature is bad for the overall ec…

> or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider.

That just indicates Uber is undercharging for these type of rides.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#574

Post by orky56 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #570

slipheen wrote: post #494

Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.

> If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company. Doesn't Uber still work elsewhere? By my calculations, the world is 57,510,000 sq miles of land, california is 163,696 sq miles, and that leaves 57,346,304 (99.715%) of the world available to uber.

Market size isn't just land mass.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#575

Post by julienb_sea » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

yaur wrote: post #192

jacobn wrote: post #28

We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.

I think it's more like "gig workers" were created to try to do an end run around hard won protection for workers. The idea that someone driving (or waiting for pickups) 40+ hours a week is somehow different is different than somehow different than someone (e.g.) doing tech support for 40+ hours a week is absurd.

That is objectively not true. Most of the "gig economies" were previously done by employees who did not have the kind of benefits you are implying. Taxi drivers almost uniformly do not receive any health insurance benefit at all.

Gig economy was designed to circumvent overburdening regulation and supply restrictions, making the service cheaper, more available and more effective for users. The benefits of this are very obvious in the case of taxis versus uber.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#576

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #550

Consultant32452 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're just regressing back to black people not being able to get a taxi.

Why would "black" taxi drivers not pick up "black" passengers? What is your obsession with color coding people? It's unhealthy and racist.

We've finally come full circle to the point where calling out racism is now racist. Pack it up folks, it's time to go home.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#577

Post by WrongThinkerNo5 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

I feel like this is an Uber-troll.

I can already hear the rising crescendo of liberal screeching about "discrimination" by letting dirty peasant drivers pick their fares and set their rates, while also making the limousine … UberLiberals … freak at being inconvenienced by a loss of upfront pricing.

"Pay living wages for thee, low price immigrant worker slaves for me." – Liberals for the Working Class PAC, 2020

It's sarcasm and allowable, censor goons.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#578

Post by stingraycharles » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #321

stingraycharles wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, that’s the “hostage” part of the grandparent. I’m saying that taxi drivers and delivery services were better off before being “disrupted”. And I’m not talking about CA per se, but generally all western countries Uber operates in. They may have a case in developing nations, I am not very familiar with the systems over there pre-Uber so I can’t comment on that.

Why were taxi drivers better off? They were also generally not considered employees (in the US). If anything, the appearance of Uber appears to have spurred some action in defence of taxi drivers, long ignored and kept out of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other legislation to protect the rights of workers. In fact, for example in NYC, they generally had to pay to work , by being forced to rent cars from medallion…

Don’t you think the power balance between Uber and taxi drivers versus the situation before is different?

I’m aware that the US generally already had a very poor system for taxi drivers, but I don’t believe Uber did not make things better. And don’t forget that Uber also has Uber Eats — delivery drivers are most definitely far worse off with that than when they were working for the restaurants themselves.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#579

Post by orky56 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

rrrazdan wrote: post #375

Well this just sucks. As a frequent SF visitor, Uber/Lyft used to be my primary way of moving around. I don't drive. I also don't see who benefits from this. You had a well functioning service for the users that will be disrupted. You had a flexible way to earn for drivers that will be disrupted. I chat with drivers a lot (to practise my English) and lots of drivers really like chatting too ( A lot of them were recen…

Uber/Lyft aren't too big to fail. They do provide a convenience that went unmet with traditional players. However they had a choice to operate within the confines of the law and chose not to. Venture capital artificially accelerated the traction for this business category before regulators could sustainably address the consequences.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#580

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

kingnothing wrote: post #367

kirykl wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

I used to work at Uber. I'll focus on one particular point: allowing drivers to see where riders are going before they accept the trip. Uber, at least when I worked there, was heavily against this functionality as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. That feature is bad for the overall ec…

Seems pretty simple - offer financial motive.

No one wants to go to airports anyway, they're a nightmare normally and are typically far from city centers and potentially further to a rider - so the fare goes up and you have surge pricing.