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

121–130 of 348 posts

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

#121

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

erdojo wrote: post #31

I believe the driver was itching for a confrontation (he stopped Kalanick as he was getting out of the car to start the conversation). It was only after being berated for a minute or two and interrupted that Kalanick's composure started to crack. Before then, I don't think anything Kalanick could have said would have mollified this driver. He had an axe and he was going to grind it. Kalanick could have handled it bet…

Where else should he grind it? Kalanick is the CEO. He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. Kalanick certainly gets paid enough to face up to people like this. And if he wants to stop facing up to it, maybe he can do something about their pay.

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

#122

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

stagbeetle wrote: post #61
placeybordeaux wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Travis is the CEO that is responsible for the flow of money into the driver's paycheck.

So is Jamie Dimon if I'm a janitor at JPMorgan Chase. But he isn't my boss.

If JPMorgan Chase cuts their janitors salaries, maybe those janitors should confront Jamie Dimon.

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

#124

Post by thkim »

This is a terrible jab at Uber. I expected Bloomberg for higher journalistic standard than this.

1. What does "two female friends" have to do with driver's argument with Kalanick? Should've cut that out. I read it as slimy ad hominem to reinforce bias on Uber's culture. Uber might have some culture problem, but it is completely unrelated with driver's issue.

2. Does driver's argument have any basis? The piece merely draws attention to Kalanick and driver's tension - is Bloomberg now a TMZ for business world?

I'm very disappointed in Bloomberg.

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

#125

Post by 8ytecoder »

PeterisP wrote: post #120
unityByFreedom wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think releasing the video was right. Regarding Uber black, another HN user points out, > 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 ab…

If the consumers are voting with their wallets that they want more Uber X rides and less Uber Black rides, well, that's what should happen. To bring supply back in line with demand, some drivers who used to drive Uber Black should either leave or downgrade, and if they won't do it willingly, then some drivers going bankrupt is a way how the market forces "driver supply" to go in the direction where it apparently need…

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?

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

#126

Post by Phlarp »

pjwal wrote: post #102
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, while it's perfectly okay for the driver to tell Travis what his concerns or pain points are, it's rather rich of him to assume that he has any context to tell Travis what business decisions make sense. As if Uber won't have charged higher prices if they could get away with it. The CEOs being disconnected with the masses is bad, but so is the masses assuming that somehow THEY know just the right thing the CEO s…

Right, the driver didn't even know what the current Uber Black fair was...falsely claiming it was $2.75. Anyone would get annoyed when someone was telling you that you were essentially doing your job wrong but didn't even know the basic facts. In this case, these facts have a direct impact on the driver, which makes it all the more inane that he doesn't know them.

You seem really intent on defending Kalanick here so I will only post this as a reply to one of the several similar comments you've made regarding this:

> 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 fares you'll lose money.

You can't force contractors to take lower fare rides and then still claim the high ground of "we didn't lower your fares to X"

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

#127

Post by tkxxx7 »

pjwal wrote: post #82
moogly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) He didn't "insist" it was $2.75. He mentioned the figure once. 2) When he quoted the figure, he said "and it's now what, $2.75?" clearly implying that he's not entirely sure about the current rate.

It seems like the driver should know these basic facts before he engages on the matter.

What does it matter if he knows the exact amounts? The point (one, of many) stands that the pay was lowered.

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

#128

Post by user5994461 »

koolba wrote: post #49
loeg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public. I don't know whether California is a two-party consent state, and the specifics of what that requires are different state to state anyway.

> Inside of a private car with the windows up isn't public. If it was your car and someone got in and recorded you, then I'd say that's more clear cut. But if you get into someone else's car do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Dunno about the USA but for the few EU countries I known the law of, the answer is yes, there is an expectation of privacy.

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

#129

Post by PeterisP »

KirinDave wrote: post #65
jimrandomh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are separate laws for video and for audio. Recording video is allowed in most places; audio recording is much more restricted, and as far as I know making this recording was not legal if it was in California. However, litigating it would cause so much more PR damage that it will almost certainly won't be.

You agree to surveillance when you use these cars.

Intent matters - as soon as the recording is used (and published!) for a clearly different purpose, the legal situation is quite different. For example disclaimer similar to classic "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" may allow the recording (depending on the location, etc) but generally will still land you in hot water if the company publishes that for an unrelated reason.
Post reply on HN