21–30 of 120 posts
I'm curious about the no-remorse, humans-are-replacable ethos which is evident through the author's description of the recruitment process. I see this time and time again in stories about software startups, and it really gives me a queasy feeling. It does not make life at a startup company seem very inviting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well hey...if you can bait civilian drivers with no real contract into taking these costs for you, more power to you, right? After all, you're creating shareholder value. If the drivers ever pick up on it, just raise the payout. They'll have made money in the meantime.
To be fair here, unless you're driving a luxury car like a Tesla, your depreciation, gas and maintenance costs are still probably $5/hour or less. So, call it $16/hour, and it's still well above minimum wage and most living wages. You're adding extra danger due to potential crash concerns etc, but I don't really know how to best quantify that. http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html
The insurance companies already spend a lot of effort trying to quantify those risks.
I'm curious about the no-remorse, humans-are-replacable ethos which is evident through the author's description of the recruitment process. I see this time and time again in stories about software startups, and it really gives me a queasy feeling. It does not make life at a startup company seem very inviting.
I don't see that at all. It's not that humans are replaceable as much as the fact that each driver's performance (and corresponding rating) is crucial to their continued employment. I have no problem with that at all given the fact that Uber's image and product both rely on having good customer experiences. If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long…
Interesting. He drives his Jeep, falls to a 4.3 rating and is about to get released from the service. He starts driving his Tesla, finds that passengers start treating him as an equal and give him a perfect 5.0 every time. Somehow that's not at all surprising and disappointing at the same time.
I'd personally be annoyed if my UberX driver came in a Wrangler; one of the most uncomfortable-as-passenger cars on the market. A Camry or something is totally fine; doesn't have to be a Tesla, but should be something relatively quiet and comfortable.
If you can find the niche of uber customers who want to go offroad though, maybe you could make a fortune.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine the same thing that happens to people who work for the average delivery food place (i.e. most don't mark it a work vehicle for insurance purposes either) and get into an accident. I'd hardly call Uber immoral for this. It's up to each person to square up with their insurance company.
What's happening here is that Uber and your favorite pizza taxi are littering. They know that a fair share of their drivers do not carry a commercial liability policy. When an Uber driver has an accident, the next thing that will happen is that their insurance denies the claim, and you have to claim against your uninsured motorist policy. Good luck to anyone who doesn't have such a policy because they don't own a car…
I'm curious about the no-remorse, humans-are-replacable ethos which is evident through the author's description of the recruitment process. I see this time and time again in stories about software startups, and it really gives me a queasy feeling. It does not make life at a startup company seem very inviting.
I don't see that at all. It's not that humans are replaceable as much as the fact that each driver's performance (and corresponding rating) is crucial to their continued employment. I have no problem with that at all given the fact that Uber's image and product both rely on having good customer experiences. If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long…
I am not saying that this is a black-and-white thing. There are certainly nuances here, and in a purely economic sense, humans are often interchangable. The problem starts when this attitude uncompromisingly becomes part of how companies (read: people) do business. A purely utilitarian, "amoral", selfish attitude to the world has bad ramifications if widely adopted.
Keep in mind that giving the boot to everyone below a 4.3 average rating means that if only one out of three customers conclude that your service was perfect, you will have your contract cancelled with no warning. It's easy enough to say "just have perfect performance, or otherwise just get another job" when you have a 5-year STEM education, grew up in a happy family and don't suffer from any serious condition or illness.
But not everyone has it this easy. If this is the future of employment, there need to be simpler options for people who can't perform significantly better than "average" most of the time. You might be safe in your software development job since you can't easily be replaced, so you boss won't fire you if, say, you go through a really messy breakup and perform at 50% capacity for six months. Everyone in an uncompromising performance-measured job will be canned under such circumstances. And having a tough time is something that all people experience once in a while.
As long as everyone could have their basic needs met when unemployed: Sure, make whatever labor structure is the most efficient. Otherwise, there needs to be a certain degree of compromise.
I'm curious about the no-remorse, humans-are-replacable ethos which is evident through the author's description of the recruitment process. I see this time and time again in stories about software startups, and it really gives me a queasy feeling. It does not make life at a startup company seem very inviting.
I don't see that at all. It's not that humans are replaceable as much as the fact that each driver's performance (and corresponding rating) is crucial to their continued employment. I have no problem with that at all given the fact that Uber's image and product both rely on having good customer experiences. If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long…
Well, in a competitive market, something has to fall to the cost of the inputs required to produce it.
Whether it should be Uber's profit margins or driver's wages is probably a value judgment.
I wonder what happens when his Tesla gets t-boned by a pickup truck, they guy speeds off and he has to claim it on his insurance. His insurance finds out he's driving for Uber and then...
Interesting. He drives his Jeep, falls to a 4.3 rating and is about to get released from the service. He starts driving his Tesla, finds that passengers start treating him as an equal and give him a perfect 5.0 every time. Somehow that's not at all surprising and disappointing at the same time.
In general, rating systems where the top vote is the "normal" vote are fucked up. There's always noise in how each party perceives the transaction. As the supplier, the only thing you can do is kiss the ass of everyone in hopes of placating the overly negative ones. And as a buyer, you're unable to reward truly above-and-beyond service.
If someone has a problem with a ride, the only thing they really care about is letting Uber know that the ride was terrible (I bet the rating distribution clusters heavily around 1, 4 and 5 stars).
Looking at passenger rating histories should also play a role in how these are interpreted (if someone is an asshole and rates tons of drivers poorly even if they're well liked, that should be discounted)
By doing something like this, you have a way of weeding out bad drivers, rewarding great drivers, and leaving everyone in the middle alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well hey...if you can bait civilian drivers with no real contract into taking these costs for you, more power to you, right? After all, you're creating shareholder value. If the drivers ever pick up on it, just raise the payout. They'll have made money in the meantime.
To be fair here, unless you're driving a luxury car like a Tesla, your depreciation, gas and maintenance costs are still probably $5/hour or less. So, call it $16/hour, and it's still well above minimum wage and most living wages. You're adding extra danger due to potential crash concerns etc, but I don't really know how to best quantify that. http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html
According to Consumer Reports (see linked article), the median car costs about $9k per year for the first 5 years (including the sticker price). That comes out to $0.75 per mile--not an insignificant amount. Driving 30 miles per hour, that's $22.50 in costs.